# Unofficial CS Presidential Poll



## Pablo (Oct 13, 1997)

I'm sure the Democratic and Republican parties will be looking hard at this poll at Club Stogie, so let's kick it off!


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

pds, i think you need to edit you spelling of kerry. you got one too many e's.


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

What!!?? No Nader????????????? :r


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

I think we all know who is going to win this poll. I think it is fairly safe to say that the majority of cigar smokers are Republican, and have common sense! 

Thank God!


----------



## kamikaiguy (Feb 18, 2004)

Go George W.


----------



## Deriffe (Jul 27, 2004)

I haven't voted FOR a President since Ronald Reagen. Since then, my vote has always been AGAINST the worse choice. I am deeply concerned about some of the policies of the current admin. I see the religious zealots gaining way to much power in politics. That being said, it's better than socialism so............. :al


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Bet you don't know whom I am voting for!


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

When Pat Paulsen was asked about his "gun control policy', he said he was all for guns, just not for bullets. He owned several rifles, many of which made fine fishing poles.  

Whoever steps up to the podium during the debates and says they'll stop the outsourcing of our kids future wins. I have no illusions, these are business men. We are no longer competing, just profiting. Ross Perot gained much popularity because he addressed that "Large Sucking Sound" of our jobs going south. Hopefully this issue will come to the forefront again.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Whoever steps up to the podium during the debates and says they'll stop the outsourcing of our kids future wins. I have no illusions, these are business men. We are no longer competing, just profiting. Ross Perot gained much popularity because he addressed that "Large Sucking Sound" of our jobs going south. Hopefully this issue will come to the forefront again.


*Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing*
by Tim Kane, Brett Schaefer, and Alison Fraser
April 1, 2004

The American economy never rests-at this moment, in fact, economic growth is vigorous. Yet every time there is a slight dip in the acceleration of output, jobs, or incomes, the undying myths of a sputtering, backfiring economy rise again. Today, many of those myths concern the ills of outsourcing.

The plain facts, however, lay all of today's myths about outsourcing to rest. But there is still a real danger that politicians working with incomplete or incorrect information will hobble American competitiveness. Scapegoating poor Third World countries, "Benedict Arnold CEOs," and free trade will not improve the U.S. economy or labor market, but would likely cause great harm. Robert McTeer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas summed up the promise of government action on outsourcing well: "If we are lucky, we can get through the year without doing something really, really stupid."[1]

Myth #1: America is losing jobs.
Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.

The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today-more than ever before.[2]

Myth #2: The low unemployment rate excludes many discouraged workers.
Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.

Not only is the unemployment rate low in historical terms at 5.6 percent, but the workforce has been growing-there are now 2.03 million more people in the labor force than in late 2001. Without a higher rate of unemployment or a shrinking workforce, there is no evidence of growing discouragement.[3]

Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.
Fact: Outsourcing has little net impact, and represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover.

Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter.[4] The most alarmist prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing, by Forrester Research, estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015-an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter, or only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter.

Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.
Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

A study conducted for the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP. Countries that adopt policies antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect jobs of a few from outsourcing, tend to retard economic growth, which leads to fewer jobs.

Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.
Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.

Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.
Fact: Outsourcing works both ways.

The number of jobs coming from other countries to the U.S. (jobs "insourced") is growing at a faster rate than jobs lost overseas. According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent.[5] Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.[6]

Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations, especially China.
Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, even China.

America is not alone in experiencing declines in manufacturing jobs. U.S. manufacturing employment declined 11 percent between 1995 and 2002, which is identical to the average world decline.[7] China has seen a sharper decline, losing 15 percent of its industrial jobs over the same period.

Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.
Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.

Outsourcing is about efficiency. As costs decline, every consumer benefits, including those who lose their jobs to outsourcing. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which includes dislocation costs in its calculations, shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent.[8]

Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.
Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.

Proposals to punish businesses that outsource jobs, institute tariffs, or change tax rules will carry unintended consequences if enacted. Such measures would injure U.S. firms that export goods and services and erode U.S. competitiveness, often in unexpected ways. Recent steel tariffs, for example, cost jobs in dozens of industries while raising prices for consumers.[9]

Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.
Fact: Jobless benefits are already working

The median duration of unemployment is now 10.9 weeks; most workers are covered by existing benefits, which last for 26 weeks. Extending today's coverage to 39 weeks would cost billions of dollars and have little impact.

Conclusion

America's workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing. The negative impact of outsourcing on the economy and American employment has been greatly exaggerated, and the benefits of outsourcing almost entirely ignored.

_Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, Brett Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), and Alison Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation._


----------



## Lord Hammer (Mar 18, 2003)

:uGo Bush :u ...NO LIBERALS :fu


----------



## WACigar (Feb 17, 2003)

I used to think I was in good company here at Club Stogie. The fact that Bush is so far ahead proves me wrong! At least you all have good taste in cigars...


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

The Heritage Foundation? Rush Limbaugh say's "Some of the finest conservative minds do their work in the Heritage Foundation."


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

relaxnsmoke said:


> The Heritage Foundation? Rush Limbaugh say's "Some of the finest conservative minds do their work in the Heritage Foundation."


 

Closer reading on your part will show that only one of the three authors works at the Heritage Foundation.

Now... are you going to refute the points the authors made or simply practice the tactic of attacking the messenger?


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

WACigar said:


> I used to think I was in good company here at Club Stogie. The fact that Bush is so far ahead proves me wrong! At least you all have good taste in cigars...


What a coincidence. I used to think the same thing. The fact that some people here are Kerry supporters proves that many people pay no attention to the issues or simply deny facts that do not mesh with what they want to believe.

But you're right... we all have good taste in cigars.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I'm not attacking anything. I have a policy issue with the direction of outsourcing. That is my right as an American. My  is over how the Heritage Foundation has anything to do with Bush-Kerry debating this issue. I want the Candidates to speak.

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/BrettSchaefer.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/TimKane.cfm


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I'm not attacking anything. I have a policy issue with the direction of outsourcing. That is my right as an American. My  is over how the Heritage Foundation has anything to do with Bush-Kerry debating this issue. I want the Candidates to speak.
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/BrettSchaefer.cfm
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/TimKane.cfm


You have every right as an American to have a policy issue with outsourcing. My point is that outsourcing is not the "boogy man" that so many people think it is. There are great advantages we can reap from it.

I stand corrected on the three authors working at the Heritage Foundation.

Still... one should not dismiss all that comes from any source. I would be less than intellectually honest to dismiss everything that comes out of the Brookings Institution (liberal.) In fact, I read much of their work to get a different perspective....and to know what the "enemy" is thinking. 

In a few moments, I'll post some other stuff on outsourcing for you and others to peruse.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

BTW: Mr. Freidman is a self-proclaimed liberal who I have read for many years.

*What Goes Around...* 
By Thomas Friedman, New York Times, 2/26/04

BANGALORE, India -- I've been in India for only a few days and I am already thinking about reincarnation. In my next life, I want to be a demagogue.

Yes, I want to be able to huff and puff about complex issues - like outsourcing of jobs to India - without any reference to reality. Unfortunately, in this life, I'm stuck in the body of a reporter/columnist. So when I came to the 24/7 Customer call center in Bangalore to observe hundreds of Indian young people doing service jobs via long distance - answering the phones for U.S. firms, providing technical support for U.S. computer giants or selling credit cards for global banks - I was prepared to denounce the whole thing. "How can it be good for America to have all these Indians doing our white-collar jobs?" I asked 24/7's founder, S. Nagarajan.

Well, he answered patiently, "look around this office." All the computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The phones are from Lucent. The air-conditioning is by Carrier, and even the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water in India, people want a trusted brand. On top of all this, says Mr. Nagarajan, 90 percent of the shares in 24/7 are owned by U.S. investors. This explains why, although the U.S. has lost some service jobs to India, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. What goes around comes around, and also benefits Americans.

Consider one of the newest products to be outsourced to India: animation. Yes, a lot of your Saturday morning cartoons are drawn by Indian animators like JadooWorks, founded three years ago here in Bangalore. India, though, did not take these basic animation jobs from Americans. For 20 years they had been outsourced by U.S. movie companies, first to Japan and then to the Philippines, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The sophisticated, and more lucrative, preproduction, finishing and marketing of the animated films, though, always remained in America. Indian animation companies took the business away from the other Asians by proving to be more adept at both the hand-drawing of characters and the digital painting of each frame by computer - at a lower price.

Indian artists had two advantages, explained Ashish Kulkarni, C.O.O. of JadooWorks. "They spoke English, so they could take instruction from the American directors easily, and they were comfortable doing coloring digitally." India has an abundance of traditional artists, who were able to make the transition easily to computerized digital painting. Most of these artists are the children of Hindu temple sculptors and painters.

Explained Mr. Kulkarni: "We train them to transform their traditional skills to animation in a digital format." But to keep up their traditional Indian painting skills, JadooWorks has a room set aside - because the two skills reinforce each other. In short, thanks to globalization, a whole new generation of Indian traditional artists can keep up their craft rather than drive taxis to earn a living.

But here's where the story really gets interesting. JadooWorks has decided to produce its own animated epic about the childhood of Krishna. To write the script, though, it wanted the best storyteller it could find and outsourced the project to an Emmy Award-winning U.S. animation writer, Jeffrey Scott - for an Indian epic!

"We are also doing all the voices with American actors in Los Angeles," says Mr. Kulkarni. And the music is being written in London. JadooWorks also creates computer games for the global market but outsources all the design concepts to U.S. and British game designers. All the computers and animation software at JadooWorks have also been imported from America (H.P. and I.B.M.) or Canada, and half the staff walk around in American-branded clothing.

"It's unfair that you want all your products marketed globally," argues Mr. Kulkarni, "but you don't want any jobs to go."

He's right. Which is why we must design the right public policies to keep America competitive in an increasingly networked world, where every company - Indian or American - will seek to assemble the best skills from around the globe. And we must cushion those Americans hurt by the outsourcing of their jobs. But let's not be stupid and just start throwing up protectionist walls, in reaction to what seems to be happening on the surface. Because beneath the surface, what's going around is also coming around. Even an Indian cartoon company isn't just taking American jobs, it's also making them.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

*The reality of outsourcing*
Bruce Bartlett (2/17/04)

Last week, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman N. Gregory Mankiw ran into a buzz saw. He committed a major gaffe, which in Washington means he spoke the truth, by defending the concept of outsourcing -- contracting with foreigners for information technology services. With a lack of job growth being the central economic issue in the country today, Mankiw's comments were assailed across the political spectrum. President Bush quickly distanced himself from his aide's remarks, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., repudiated them, and many Democrats called for Mankiw's dismissal.

There is at least one person in Washington who knows precisely how Mankiw feels: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Back in 1974, Greenspan held the same position Mankiw now holds. Shortly after his confirmation in September of that year, Greenspan participated in an economic summit. At the time, the United States was in the middle of the deepest recession of the postwar period and inflation was rising rapidly. That year, the Consumer Price Index would rise 12.3 percent.

Greenspan was asked whether the Ford administration's policies were benefiting the rich over the poor. He replied: "If you really wanted to examine who, percentage-wise, is hurt the most in their incomes, it is Wall Street brokers. I mean their incomes have gone down the most."

Needless to say, Democrats had a field day attacking Greenspan for seeming to worry more about the problems of rich Wall Street brokers than those of common people. Although he quickly apologized, many observers believe that Greenspan was permanently scarred by the incident and forever afterward became far more circumspect in his public and even private comments.

Of course, when one gets caught in one of these Washington firestorms, there really isn't much one can do except apologize, hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. That is what Mankiw is doing. Unfortunately, the result is that debate on serious issues is often short-circuited and the political establishment draws erroneous conclusions. In this case, it may conclude that the issue of outsourcing is radioactive and everyone may rush to support ill-conceived legislative fixes with harmful economic consequences.

Here is the offending statement in the Economic Report of the President that has led to calls for Mankiw's head: "One facet of increased services trade is the increased use of offshore outsourcing in which a company relocates labor-intensive service industry functions to another country. ... Whereas imported goods might arrive by ship, outsourced services are often delivered using telephone lines or the Internet. The basic economic forces behind the transactions are the same, however. When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically."

One would have a hard time finding a reputable economist anywhere who disagrees with this analysis. No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad. Nations get rich by concentrating on doing the things they do best and letting others produce those things they can produce better and more cheaply. It is called the specialization of labor, and it is the foundation for economic growth. That is why even Democratic economists like Janet Yellen, Laura Tyson, Brad DeLong and Robert Reich have come to Mankiw's defense.

What is different about outsourcing and why it has aroused so much protest is that it is affecting workers who thought they were immune from international competition. Blue-collar workers in manufacturing have been suffering from outsourcing for 100 years. It is worth remembering that textile jobs in South Carolina today were originally outsourced from Massachusetts. While in the short run, the transition was painful for Massachusetts textile workers, they soon found better jobs in new industries. That is why per capita income there is and always has been far higher than that in South Carolina.

It would be grossly unfair to say that it is OK to move manufacturing wherever production is cheaper, but wrong to subject information technology services to the same competition. It is mostly because of the Internet and the fact that IT people know how to use it that they are getting attention disproportionate to their numbers. Moreover, if we hadn't just gone through a painful economic recession, most of these people probably would have already found new jobs and the problem of outsourcing would not be worth writing nasty emails about to politicians and people like me.

In any case, even if the federal government tried to stop outsourcing, it cannot. We can put quotas and tariffs on goods that cross our borders, but it is impossible to stop people from importing software and data over the Internet. The only response that is possible is to adapt, innovate and stay ahead of the curve.


----------



## KingMeatyHand (Mar 21, 2004)

I have a simple rule to making and keeping friends.. divert any and every conversation away from politics and/or religion. That being said, anyone else excited about football season?  

To roll with the thread digression a bit more: since I make most of my money from web development, outsourcing scares the hell out of me. Try to bid against an Indian coding/design firm sometime. Most charge $8, or under, an hour. Sure their communication is crap and their work (most of the time) resembles that of a drunk grinder monkey, but most companies only see the bottom line.

While I may not lose my job to outsourcing, my company will lose jobs to it. While a company might get a cheaper product by outsourcing, it will (once again, usually) be an inferior one (not to mention help skew the pricing of my industry to ridiculous proportions).


----------



## megasolo (Jan 13, 2004)

:sb uhhh which ones against taxes :c on Cigars :w :u


----------



## KingMeatyHand (Mar 21, 2004)

megasolo said:


> :sb uhhh which ones against taxes :c on Cigars


 :r

good, relevant call


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

For any of you out there who are voting for the Democrats ask yourself these questions:

1. Who would the terrorist rather win the election? Bush who will send Marines to kill them or Kerry who will send lawyers to prosecute them in an international court where they will be found not guilty and released?

2. Who do you trust to better use your money you earn, YOU or the Government? How would you rather invest for your retirement, where would you rather send your kids to school, what health care you want, etc? 10% of the population pays 90% of the taxes so any tax break that would do anything for the economy goes to the "rich".

3. Who do you want making American policies, American leaders or the French, Germans, and Russians? Once we start giving in to other countries we might as well start surrendering like France. The international community should not have ANY say into how we think we should defend ourselves. 

4. Do you think that anybody should be able to marry anyone else? Why not two brothers or two sisters marry? They might love each other just the same as any other couple and would like the benefits of being married. How about People and animals? A lot of people really love their pets, now they can get married!

I believe that this is one of the most important presidential elections ever, so please think through the issues, and vote! Don't let anyone spoonfeed you your ideas, liberal or conservative.

Just my two cents...


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Oh, and another thing, why do liberals get all angry and defensive when you call them liberals? If someone calls me a conservative I say, "you're darn right I am!"


----------



## ff6849 (Jul 23, 2004)

Here's a letter from a Kerry supporter :u 

Dear Sir,

I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had and extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes. Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse: I lost my job. I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War. I lost my home. I lost my health insurance. As a matter of fact, I lost virtually everything and became homeless. Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me. I will do anything to insure President Bush's defeat in the next election. I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year. Bush has to go. I just thought you and your listeners would like to know how one senior citizen views the Bush Administration.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely, Sadaam Hussein


----------



## smokemifyagotem (Mar 12, 2003)

Things I PERSONALLY have experienced w/ Bush as President. 

1. I've been in the IT industry for 5 yrs now and let me tell you - outsourcing was hapening way before Bush came into office. Its the liberals that decided to make it a political issue.

2. I am nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE near the top 2% of wage earners in this country and I have recieved a fat tax rebate for the past 3 yrs - including that $300 check. Seriously, why are the Dems saying Bush's tax policies hurt the "poor". I fall under this catagory and Im lovin it!


----------



## smokemifyagotem (Mar 12, 2003)

ps - Did anyone catch the part of Edwards speech last night when he went off on a rant about all the things they would do to secure the country (and not once mentioned HOW they would do it...). The best part was when he said something to the effect of "we will secure the loose Russian nukes".
WHAT, I said!! They Will?!! HOW?!! If they know how FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CALL THE WHITE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY and tell them. WHY would you sit on this vital info when millions of lives are at stake!!!!!!! :u


----------



## WACigar (Feb 17, 2003)

Please note, this is a tongue in cheek reply; I'm not looking to make enemies with people who obviously have a different opinion of George Bush. I think it is all a matter of perspective. As I see it, President Bush has the entire world hating us (including long time allies), he's gotten 900+ American soldiers killed in order to avenge his daddy, he has created some of the biggest budget deficits this country has ever seen, rewards people for having kids by giving them tax breaks the rest of us don't get, he prevents research from being conducted that could save human lives, and he feels it is his right to tell two loving _humans_ that they can't marry. Is my perspective just "off?"


----------



## Lord Hammer (Mar 18, 2003)

WACigar said:


> Please note, this is a tongue in cheek reply; I'm not looking to make enemies with people who obviously have a different opinion of George Bush. I think it is all a matter of perspective. As I see it, President Bush has the entire world hating us (including long time allies), he's gotten 900+ American soldiers killed in order to avenge his daddy, he has created some of the biggest budget deficits this country has ever seen, rewards people for having kids by giving them tax breaks the rest of us don't get, he prevents research from being conducted that could save human lives, and he feels it is his right to tell two loving _humans_ that they can't marry. Is my perspective just "off?"


As in life, you can't be the "Boss" by being everybodys friend...you have to lead and you will make enemies. As far as the World is concerned who gives a damn...they didn't have a Sept. 11th nor are they the repeated target of any of these radical groups. Sure they're gonna hate us...we fight back and they are afraid of our reactions and how it will change their cozy little lifestyle when they would rather sit back and not get involved. Any soldier lost is one too many but this is war, we lost many more lives on another war, i won't mention, that did nothing to ensure the safety of our homeland and our families. Having kids is a HUGE responibility and with college tuitions getting into the hundreds of thousands of dollars i don't know if my kids will even get that option so i'll take whatever i get and be grateful for it. As it is at 42 and self-employed i haven't had health insurance for almost ten years and if social security doesn't last a little longer i'm screwed unless i saved some cash. Now, two humans marrying? I'm no lawyer but if the Church would approve it then so be it...i'm not qualified to be the judge on a moral and ethical question such as that. Bush has his flaws, personally i think Daddy did a better job, but we don't need another Liberal in the oval office in my opinion. That said, i don't get all upset about peoples political viewpoints and i believe that as Americans we all have the right to free speech. I don't choose my friends by their political beliefs, religion or ethnicity...friend  Just my two cents...Peace :u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

WACigar said:


> he has created some of the biggest budget deficits this country has ever seen, .... he prevents research from being conducted that could save human lives,


deficits have never killed or hurt anyone. Ever met a person and they said "I lost my job because of the deficits" or "I can't feed my family because of the deficit"? The only reason that Clinton had a budget surplus was because he cut defense spending like a madman, and look where that has gotten us...

As for stemcell research, this is a topic where the dems have completely lied about it to further their agenda. Stem cell research has NOT BEEN BANNED, just no more federal funds are going to develop any more embrionic stemcells, the original strains of stemcells that were developed still get government funding and adult stemcells also still get funding, just no more embrionic stem cells can be created with government funds. This isn't saying that private industries are not allowed to create them, they could create as many as they want, just not with federal funds. So if you have no moral problem with stemcell research, make a donation to a private research lab.

It is sort of like the abortion issue, even though it is legal, the government will not pay for a woman to get an abortion. There is too large a percentage of taxpayers that are completely against it to use their money for it. (And no, the war does not apply in this case because the government's main purpose is national security and protecting its citizens. Whether the war did make us safer is up to debate, though I whole heartedly believe it did)

I wish the democrats would tell the truth sometimes, and not the "Michael Moore" truth.

(Man I love politics)


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

Lord Hammer said:


> Now, two humans marrying? I'm no lawyer but if the Church would approve it then so be it...i'm not qualified to be the judge on a moral and ethical question such as that.


Umm, it seems you forgot a little thing called the sepearation of Church and State


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

WACigar said:


> Please note, this is a tongue in cheek reply; I'm not looking to make enemies with people who obviously have a different opinion of George Bush. I think it is all a matter of perspective. As I see it, President Bush has the entire world hating us (including long time allies) {*i'm glad this is tongue in cheek, cuz you can't be serious. the world hated we americans long before he took office, and i see it all the time when i travel to other countries, you should see what their news says about us!*}, he's gotten 900+ American soldiers killed in order to avenge his daddy {*uh.. no... he's kept things from happening in the future. wish i could dig up a link, but it showed how many terrorist attempts have been thwarted recently.*}, he has created some of the biggest budget deficits this country has ever seen, rewards people for having kids by giving them tax breaks the rest of us don't get {*and what about all the welfare the Dems hand out to all the babies having babies?? that sounds like what a democrat does.*}, he prevents research from being conducted that could save human lives, and he feels it is his right to tell two loving _humans_ that they can't marry. Is my perspective just "off?"


i don't have a problem with anyones political views if they're someone i would like anyway... that's their view (unless they're hitler or saddam or osama).

but my replies are in the post. 

i don't have a real issue on the entire "gay/lesbian marriage" thing, cuz they're gonna do what they wanna do regardless. i don't pay much attention to it because it won't effect me directly, but isn't it more about them getting the same benefits that "standard boy/girl" married couples get?

man, i'm really thinking i should've just NOT posted that first political email on here.... 

but i like this... i just want to know WHAT j. kerry PLANS on doing IF elected. i want details on HOW he PLANS on doing it.
cuz if he gets elected, then doesn't have any plans at all, isn't that like lieing on your resume?


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

Kerry will be speaking tonite, so you will have a chance to be swayed. Dont forget to watch the movie Speilberg put together on kerry (some of it is faked -but dont worry about that)


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

wish i could, but i'm stuck at work.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

mr.c said:


> Kerry will be speaking tonite, so you will have a chance to be swayed. Dont forget to watch the movie Speilberg put together on kerry (some of it is faked -but dont worry about that)


His speech is going to be 55 minutes (yes that is how long it is supposed to be) of "Bush has completely distroyed america and Im going to fix it even though I refuse to say how". No thanks.


----------



## Lord Hammer (Mar 18, 2003)

Treyjo43 said:


> Umm, it seems you forgot a little thing called the sepearation of Church and State


  I rest my case..."I'm not qualified"  .


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

WOW! Attack dogs! Politics suck, I'm not watching any of this Nonsense tonight or when the Republicans have their LoveFest. (I avoid conventions and election returns like the plague, the last election return was a nightmare, not because of the outcome....because it lasted weeks! I couldn't avoid it! JEB, CHADS, GORE, BUSH! ARRRRGH!:c )

I think everyone who votes wins. If you do not vote, you lose. I'd never attack a person for their beliefs though. Democrats Liberal? About as Liberal as the next check they get from corporate donors, Nader is right on that issue.......I'm Liberal, you want to see a liberal dude come check me out. I'd make Nader look like Pat Robertson. I just don't even give a hoot about the whole lot of them. I'm about as loosey goosey as you can find, nobody I know would ever say, Hey, relaxnsmoke is a hardcore conservative. Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I'm Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green or any other affilliated political party member. I'm me. A guy with one vote.

flipflop made some valid points about outsourcing, my wife reads both of those characters' op eds on a regular basis, then bounces it off my superball 'noggin (Tries to engage me in some other topic than food, sex and sleep.) I really don't care about politics at all. If you can't smoke it, F$%# It! But this is a lively topic.....makes me want to puff up a fine hand rolled cigar. 

PDS is really getting the pot stirred up with this post!!! :w


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I saw this on the net, and thought it might be worthwhile. It is from Senator Kerry's commander in Viet Nam.

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families. 

"Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'" 

-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired) 

And this from a crewmate...

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?" 

-- Steven Gardner


----------



## Bman (Jun 10, 2003)

I just thought I would a my .02 to this thread… I vote for what I believe in… In this I mean the people that run for any office most times is not the major issue…I want to vote for some one that has the same basic beliefs that I have… Therefore I am a Republican simply because the basic party platform is the closet party platform that I believe in… No I don’t see eye to eye on all issues exactly the same as all I vote for but that will never happen. I believe in the American Dream and I’m not going to vote for some one that doesn’t. Taking my hard earned tax dollars and giving it to some one to sit at home to eat sleep and drink on my dime isn’t my idea of the American Dream. I believe in Supply Side Economics… This is simple, have you ever heard a retailer say if you don’t have it you can’t sell it…Therefore if some one doesn’t make it you can’t buy it… When people are paid by the government to stay home and not add anything to the economy it raises prices for every one…. I guess I could go on and on but if I created a political party this would be my platform. 

-I like big cars, big boats, big motorcycles, big houses and big campfires.

-I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some governmental stooge with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts for squirting out babies.

-Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

-I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts!

-I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

- I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United ***** College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America and see what happens. Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

-I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

-When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that's not racial profiling, it is the law of statistics.

-I know what sex is, and there are not varying degrees of it. If I received sex from one of my subordinates in my office, it wouldn't be a private matter or my personal business. I would be "FIRED" immediately!

-I believe that if you are selling me a milk shake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen you should have to speak English! My father and grandfather shouldn't have to
die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over and disrespect ours.

-I think the police should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.

-I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation recount votes when needed. I know what the definition of lying is.

-I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business. We did not go to the aid of
certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document and open to their interpretations.

-I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television, and that doesn't stop you from watching them.

-I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.

-I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you.

-It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack their little ass' when necessary and say "NO".

-"I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. And Please stay home until that new lip ring heals, I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you serve me fries!

-I am sick of "Political Correctness" and of all the suck ups that go along with it. 
HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!
There is some humor in this also… If you don’t like my platform don’t get mad … Go make you own political party…. And no I didn’t write this, someone e-mailed it to me, so I’m not alone… Bman


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i have read that email, and i love it. 
i'm so sick of political correctness, people need to grow a thick skin and just start calling things as you see them.


----------



## Churchlady (Jan 22, 2004)

Awesome post Bman! 

Wetterhorn, where'd you find that stuff? I'd love to get some more "ammo".


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Churchlady said:


> Awesome post Bman!
> 
> Wetterhorn, where'd you find that stuff? I'd love to get some more "ammo".


Here is the web link: http://kerry-04.com/war/shipmates.php


----------



## Churchlady (Jan 22, 2004)

tanks!


----------



## WACigar (Feb 17, 2003)

Didn't the attack by terrorists on September 11, 2001 occur while Bush was in office? The terrorists must not be too worried about a republican president if they will attack while one is in office. Am I correct? 

Someone on TV last night stated that people are not voting for Kerry, they are voting against Bush. I hate to admit it, but I fall into that group. For the most part, I am pleased with Bush's accomplishments around the world but think he has done a miserable job at home. I want someone who can carry on the momentum of the so called "War on Terror" while improving things here in the US. Kerry says he can do it so right now he has my vote. If he does't give me a better explanation of how he intends to do this I could vote the other way. I saw a sign which sums up my feelings: "Kerry, a man who thinks twice before saying nothing."


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

WACigar said:


> Didn't the attack by terrorists on September 11, 2001 occur while Bush was in office? The terrorists must not be too worried about a republican president if they will attack while one is in office. Am I correct?


No, your not correct. Remember the 9/11 attacks were in the planning stages for many years. Al-Qaeda grossly misjudged Bush's resolve and the reaction of the American people. All they had to go on was how we had meekly responded to previous attacks (first WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc.) There have been numerous stories about captured al-Qaeda "lieutenants" who have said this.

Now they know that Bush says what he means and backs it up with force.

What they do know, is that Kerry flip-flops and doesn't talk as tough as W. IMHO, they see Kerry as less intransigent than Bush and that would please them much more.


----------



## Churchlady (Jan 22, 2004)

Voting... NOT Kerry - I like this quote...

"In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it." 

-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired) 

talk about opportunistic!


----------



## WACigar (Feb 17, 2003)

Flip Flop: I agree, because Bush took such swift and strong action the terrorists will no doubt think twice about attcking us while he is in office. I'm not sure the same can be said about Kerry and that is why I'm not 100% sure I'd vote for him, or, as I said, vote against Bush.


----------



## CigarHoss (Jul 9, 2004)

I think that the most important thing is that you guys (and gals) get out and make sure you make it TO the polls to ensure that these great opinions be voiced. I posted a message in the "everything but cigars" room with a link that will help you get registered if you have not.

If you're undecided, or have any questions as to who to vote for, and need simple answers, please feel free to send me a message. I do vote conservative, but will keep an open mind.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

Lord Hammer said:


> I rest my case..."I'm not qualified"  .


LOL, nice save


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

Funny how only 1 person (out of 30)that served with him, supports his campaign.Unfit to serve : swiftboat crewmen speak out


----------



## rkt (Dec 12, 1997)

I have talked with about 20 young men who are currently in Iraq. They were home on their two week leave, one of them is my nephew. Everyone of them is hoping Bush gets re-elected. Their exact quote was "Bush better win or our asses are in a world of shit." They are from 19 yr olds that are there, getting mortar fire, sweating in 140 degree heat in full combat gear and body armor(that Kerry voted against funding for), and getting shot at almost daily. I have to respect that.

One of my good friends just got his call up orders. He is a Lt Colonel. He hopes Bush wins too and he is a minority.

Another friend is a Navy Commander (Ret 33 yrs of service) and he wants Bush to win.

All Clinton did was wag his finger and say we are gonna get those bad guys.
Bush took it to their door step. Same as Reagan bombed Khadaffi(sp) house in Iran. We not gonna take it! 

Terrorist would not release hostages to Carter because they knew he wouldn't do anything but as soon as Reagan got in office they released them.
Terrorist planned and executed attacks on embassies and the WTC while Clinton cut military, FBI and CIA budgets. 9-11 happened because we were weak. They thought we would wag our finger one more time and go shame shame. Just this weak Pakistan captured a suspect in one of the 97 embassy bombing in Africa. Good! Let them know we are still looking for them and we will not let up. 

As Adm. Yamamoto told the Emperor of Japan. Do not attack the United States. You will wake a sleeping giant.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

RKT, since you're on the southern missouri side of KC, and my brother is from Springfield, they aren't in the same units are they?

my bro is in something called 117th AVCRAD, which is some helicopter unit.

i'm asking because my bro was just home on his 2 weeks R&R, he goes back on the 30th or 31st.

he's told me, and everyone else in his contact list to NOT listen to the liberal media. all the soldiers are sick of it over there. they get a few different papers, and the main one is "the Stars & Stripes", and they take stories from newspapers around the states... most of them are liberal articles that only talk about how bad things are, nothing about the good stuff they're doing, etc. they're just tired of that side of the media portraying the negative stuff, which is only about 4% of the country of iraq....


----------



## Bruce5 (Jul 27, 2003)

I do not agree with everything that Bush does,
I do not agree with all republican or democrats on current issues.
I do however think Bush is the best choice as our President.


----------



## El Rey del Mundo (Jul 11, 2004)

Who is the Libertarian Party´s candidate? I become a liberatarian myself after reading Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek. Hayek, who the great great Ludwig von Mises called a socialist.

Isnt it time to end the embargo against Cuba?

There isnt just socialists in Sweden:

http://www.johannorberg.net/


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Are you guys actually attacking a Vietnam Vet? Why not just "compare Military Records?" Only one Vietnam Vet who served with Kerry supports him? That has already been proven false and is on record in the media in full context. President George W. Bushs' campaign is working very hard as I type this, to steer the topic as far away from Kerry's Military record as much as possible. W's campaign is tight, smart and well run, they realize that dog won't hunt. Mr. O'Neill (a swiftboat crewmember) must of missed the sailing across the Boston Harbor. Drudge loves this stuff, I do too, but between the two candidates, I'd rather be the one with too many Purple Hearts than not enough pay stubs.

I am not overly impressed with either gentlemen running for office, but I never hesitate to shake the hand of someone who puts themselves in the line of fire for my freedom. These Accusations are just that. Purple Hearts are not given lightly, ask someone who has one, I've spent the last 3 years working along side a fellow who earned his Purple Heart defending my freedom in Vietnam. I may not agree with what a man does, says or thinks, but trying to belittle a Vietnam Vet is just below the surface.


----------



## sleepyjim (Jul 24, 2004)

A VNV or a WW2 or GW vets aint the issue, all have good and crap in them, to me what really stinks about Kerry and his BS is very simple:

1 He flip plops on most things.

2 Very anti military, look up his voting record, he voted against almost every major weapon system we have.

3 He served in Nam I dont care how long or what ever, he was there, W did his part as well again I dont split hairs, they both served, Clinton ran away so both to me are better men, the issue I have is this, he was an officer, yet comes home and testifies how all the men are raping, killin innocents and such, why didnt he report ANYONE when he was there? either he lied in testifying or he did not do his duty as an officer.

4 His testimony and the meeting with the communist and the whole fonda gate thing is enough to turn my stomic, I am a combat vet and I would spit in ANYONES face who blanketly describes our servicemebers as he did. And I personally think it was hurtful to our troops in Nam for him the meet with the commies and denouce American involvement.

The bottom line is this, we are at war and will be for the rest of our lives, terrorist are NEVER going away, I would rather fight in another countrues yard than ours, and I think W has done a great job as a war President.

Ask yourself this simple question: Who would the terrorist want in the Whitehouse? Answer an anti military, pro UN, do nothing till we must, they want Kerry.

Here is a link that reveals much: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-123002-8027r.htm

Jim
Thank God we live in a place where we can even discuss this!


----------



## kansashat (Mar 13, 2004)

Bruce5 said:


> I do not agree with everything that Bush does,
> I do not agree with all republican or democrats on current issues.
> I do however think Bush is the best choice as our President.


I think Bruce5 pretty well sums up how I feel. I am a political independent who thinks with his head & feels with his heart. I do not let either one totally run my life.


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

Getting a little tired of kerry rolling out the "I am vietnam vet war hero" every where he goes. Thank you for your service John BUT Why did you lie infront of the senate? Why did you call your "band of brothers" Murderers, rapists, baby killers at the senate hearing infront of millions?? u you got to be friggin kidding me. I cant wait for the debates, your gonna get creamed 


Any one read the interview from Gen. Tommy Franks (retired) ? He has a book comming out. Good read, cant wait to get the book.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

mr.c said:


> Getting a little tired of kerry rolling out the "I am vietnam vet war hero" every where he goes. Thank you for your service John BUT Why did you lie infront of the senate? Why did you call your "band of brothers" Murderers, rapists, baby killers at the senate hearing infront of millions?? u you got to be friggin kidding me. I cant wait for the debates, your gonna get creamed


All due respect mr. c, Vietnam was a quagmire, Mr. Kerry never called any individual he fought along with that or any other soldier. It was the policy. He was one of millions of USA citizens that saw a need to get out of Vietnam. We left that war in the most dignified way possible. I have no heartache with you disagreeing with Kerry, but he fought in this war, experienced firsthand what was happening, so did a lot of us my age, I'm not about to disparage anybody who fought the war, or helped end Vietnam. Richard Nixon was elected into this after JFK was assasinated and LBJ bailed, he didn't want it, but he was hired to do a job and he did it, he ended it with what was the most Honor he could find.

I really never considered Kerry's military experience until this thread, but the facts are what they are, the Debates will be amazing.

I am not a Bush nor Kerry supporter, but Vietnam was devasting in all aspects, the veterans of that war were shunned when they came home, that was and still is wrong. He is but one of thousands of vets who disagreed with the war. That's just the way of it.


----------



## sleepyjim (Jul 24, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> All due respect mr. c, Vietnam was a quagmire, Mr. Kerry never called any individual he fought along with that or any other soldier.
> *The hell he didnt, he called them that during testamony, Aint gonna fly here !*
> 
> It was the policy.
> ...


*Yep but not many did things that caused the enemy to gain confidence and endager our troops*

Jim


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Nixon felt betrayed by not only politicians, also the pentagon itself. Kissinger was and is one very intellingent man. (He would go to Disneyland to relieve stress while Nixon was staying at San Clemente, sometimes selling popcorn, sometimes giving tours, it's true.)

http://www.mishalov.com/Nixon_unraveling_war.html

I not defending Kerrys' campaign or his war record and anti-war stance. The horror of Vietnam was in the daily death counts, his testimony was part of a momentum to slow this. He has never denied any of this and either has any other Vet who opposed the Vietnam War. Nor have the millions of USA citizens.

All Vietnam Vets deserve to be respected and honored, I'm surrounded by Vietnam Vets daily, some like Kerry, some like Bush....

Attacking the man's voting record is a much more reasonable effort than his military record. According to all I've read, Kerry is in for some deep doo doo.
August is going to be one huge AttackFest for the Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

August september october should be a real crap storm  with both sides going on the attack.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

I think once the American Public learns about Kerry's 20 year senate voting record (which is the #1 most liberal in the senate, Edwards in #4) I think Bush won't have a problem.

Notice how during the convention he kept harping on how he lead his men 30 years ago in Vietnam and how that makes him fit to lead the country during war now? That is because his senate voting record on national defence is an absolute disaster. He has voted against most weapon systems and defense spending, voted against the first Gulf War, for the War in Iraq, against the funding for the troops, for flag burning, against the Apache helicopter, against the B-2 stealth bomber, etc. He has very usefull amnesia.

If it was up to Kerry we would be defending ourselves against terrorists with musketts, canoes, and bi-planes. 

Please don't elect this joker, your families lives depend on it.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

As a member of the American Legion, I speak to many Viet Nam veterans. I know they served honorably without committing atrocities. Senator Kerry has accused these brave soldiers and sailors of committing atrocities and I find it difficult to believe that the instances of atrocities were as wide spread as he puts forth.

Here are some more quotes I found regarding Senator Kerry's service in Viet Nam. These are statements from swift boar personnel, who served in the same unit as Senator Kerry. I find these statements most troubling. Here they are for your reading. If you want to look at the site these fellows have, here it is: http://www.swiftvets.com/

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."

-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

"In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

"It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home ... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

-- Robert Elder


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

thought these would be good for a laugh.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

I'm confused, who are the people who voted for "Other" going to vote for?  and why aren't the people who claim to be Kerry supporters rebutting the Bush supporters claims? I am interested to know why y'all are voting for who you are...

Great post PDS, I'm pretty much undecide as of right know and this is educating me somewhat on the two canadiates(even though I take much of what is said with a grain of salt)


----------



## sleepyjim (Jul 24, 2004)

Thank God we are Americans who can disagree or argue and we still are in common being American, BOTL, and dont take it personally.

I feel we all have opinions and issues, I say dont believe ANYONE, instead, investigate, educate yourself, and VOTE!

Great thread! Great Discussions!

Jim


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Here are some of the things President Bush has helped pass in regards to Homeland Security.

*Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act:* The USA PATRIOT Act brought down the artificial wall separating law enforcement and intelligence officers and allowed them to talk to each other as they work to prevent future attacks.

*Creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC): * TTIC became operational on May 1, 2003 and has since begun merging, analyzing and disseminating all threat information collected domestically and abroad in a single location.

*Creation of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC):* TSC consolidates terrorist watchlists and provide 24/7 operational support for thousands of Federal screeners across the country and around the world. The TSC will ensure that America's government screeners are working from the same unified set of anti-terrorist information when a suspected terrorist is screened or stopped anywhere in the Federal system. 
*
Launch of the Container Security Initiative:* The Container Security Initiative establishes tough new procedures and created new partnerships with the world's largest ports to target high-risk cargo before it leaves for our shores. 19 major ports, consisting of two-thirds of cargo containers shipped to the U.S., have agreed to participate in CSI.

I must say, I like these steps. I also wish the President would take steps to secure the borders. I think this simply must be done! Alas, I think the President bows to political pressure from the Mexican community and does not want to appear racist - something I think is utterly ridiculous!

:sb


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Treyjo43 said:


> I'm confused, who are the people who voted for "Other" going to vote for?  and why aren't the people who claim to be Kerry supporters rebutting the Bush supporters claims? I am interested to know why y'all are voting for who you are...


I'm not even a Kerry supporter and folks wanted to take me to task for supporting his Vietnam duty?!? It is human nature to avoid putting yourself in uncomfortable situations and making your peers (whom I consider everyone on this board to be) accept yourself. I only defend his record because he has explained his stance without blinking an eye. He went and experienced Vietnam firsthand. I am also old enough to know how unpopular Vietnam was with the American people the day he started his service, Kerry was aware of this and still he went and fought for his country, to protect our freedom. If all this is so calculated for a political career, why would he risk his life and then change his mind.

To think that President Bush is avoiding Kerrys military career would be enough to convince folks Kerry was really there. Bush and camp are not stupid people, they have checked out swiftboat.com and realize it is not going to help their campaign one iota. Between the two mens Military records, one was more calculated that the other.

John Kerry is a Vietnam Vet. He disagreed with that war. He isn't alone on that stance. Do all Vietnam Vets who disagreed with the war get equal treatment, or better yet, do all USofA citizens who disagreed with Vietnam need to be attacked and called traiters? Bush doesn't think so, why would his supporters think so?


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

One of the most scary things that Kerry said in his acceptance speech was this: (paraphrasing) "I will meet every attack with full force"

Sounds like a good idea at first, right? What this really says is that Kerry is going to just wait for attacks to happen IN the U.S. and then respond. Sounds like a great policy, huh? He never says he will prevent attacks, just respond to them.

Another thing that the Left has continued to say is that Bush's policies have actually made us less safe because it makes the terrorists mad and recruits more members. 

This is essentially the same as saying that if there is a rapist in your town you shouldn't try to catch him or put other rapists in jail because it will make him angry and rape more women, and it will make more rapists start raping women. Does this make sense? Raping women and killing innocent people is mindset, not a misunderstanding of cultures and ideologies. You can't hope to "talk" it out of them.

Terrorists to not attack us because we are in Iraq, they attack us because they hate our way of life and their religion tells them to (no matter what you have heard, the Koran actually says around 40 times in it to wipe the infedels and non-believers off the earth). 9/11, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, the Embassy bombings, etc. ALL HAPPENED BEFORE THE WAR IN IRAQ. We can not hope to just reason with these people and change their way of thinking about us. We have to go after them on their own turf and the Governments that support them. They have vowed to not stop until every non-muslim has been killed. Will just responding to attacks that kill Americans help this? 

The world is much safer after removing Saddam from Iraq, we couldn't hope that he would just go away and be good. He continued to fund suicide bomber's families, which he publicly announced, in Israel, that alone links him to terrorists. Even after his death, his sons (which are even more evil than him) would have taken over power and then we would have a real mess. This war was inevitable, it was just a matter of how ready you wanted Iraq to be. Should we have given him 20 or 30 years to amass a larger military and better weapons? What ever you think, pre-emption would have saved millions of lives during the past 100 years. Just imagine what WWII would have been like if Hitler had been removed before the conflict escalated to a major necessity to remove him.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> We can not hope to just reason with these people and change their way of thinking about us. We have to go after them on their own turf and the Governments that support them. They have vowed to not stop until every non-muslim has been killed. Will just responding to attacks that kill Americans help this?


summerkc, Agreed, Al Qaeda and any similar group who's idealogies are so far from reason shall atone sooner than later. These men are cowards, they hide in caves and infiltrate amongst innocent humans to do nothing but perpetuate death. To destroy liberty and freedom. This country must do everything it can to stop terror, and it looks like we have a good start. We have taken the lead once again in "this war" which is terror and no matter what other Countries may say about that.....they know, they would be screwed if we didn't.

But Bush and Kerry both have said basically the same thing about the 9/11 commision findings and to implement them ASAP. I still am seeing many similarities, Nader is definately different, just too weak on defense. (to put it mildly  )

I'll keep watching these guys........it would be easier if I could just say I'm voting for brand X.....


----------



## rkt (Dec 12, 1997)

IHT,

He said no one reports what they really do over there. He brought home hundreds of pictures. He says no one shows the mobile hospitals that appear when they find wounded Iraqis. He said that within mins chinooks drop in with trucks and supplies and they start triage on the wounded. More trucks, choppers and ambulances arrive to haul them to US hospitals. 

No one shows the MRE's (Meal Ready to Eat) that we deliver to people that have not eaten because there is no food. The kids that wait by the base gates everyday and soldiers throw them food, candy and bottled water.

No one shows the soldiers getting some Iraqis car out of a ditch that they drove into when a IED went off. 

No one shows the trucks of food and water given out daily.

No one shows the innocent dead Iraqis the soldiers pick up and then bury.
When bus loads are killed, burned beyond recognizing them as human and soldiers have to remove them, haul what is left of the bus away, and bury the dead. 

He said "No one shows all the good things we do."

No I think they are in different units. He is a combat engineer. He finds IED's (improvised explosive devices.) and mines. Digs them up, disarms them and then uses explosives to destroy the ordinances. They do this to keep roads and bridges open and safe.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

rkt said:


> IHT,
> 
> He said no one reports what they really do over there. He brought home hundreds of pictures. He says no one shows the mobile hospitals that appear when they find wounded Iraqis. He said that within mins chinooks drop in with trucks and supplies and they start triage on the wounded. More trucks, choppers and ambulances arrive to haul them to US hospitals.
> 
> ...


Of course no one shows that, the media chooses what to show and they choose to show only the bad and the ugly. The media will ALWAYs report the horrors of war(or anything for that matter) instead of the good things that are going on. What the major newpapers and news shows report 99% of the time is what is happing in 1% of Iraq...but it's not really thier fault, it's what sells, it's what we ask for, humanitarion articles and segments don't sell papers or TV ads so they are going to write about/show what sells...


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> ....What the major newpapers and news shows report 99% of the time is what is happing in 1% of Iraq...but it's not really thier fault, it's what sells, it's what we ask for, humanitarion articles and segments don't sell papers or TV ads so they are going to write about/show what sells...


So very true, and so very sad. It will be interesting to see how the whole thing is protrayed in history books 100 years from now.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

LeafHog said:


> So very true, and so very sad. It will be interesting to see how the whole thing is protrayed in history books 100 years from now.


 I bet in 100 years we will look back on the Iraq war and see that it was the start of the fall of radical Islamism and the start of democracy in the middle east. It will start a peace there that no one has accomplished or tried to achieve in 4000 years. Already there has been major progress with Pakistan, Afganistan, Lybia, Turkey, and now Iraq. The seeds of democracy have started to sprout. All people want to be free, they just need someone powerful enough to remove the leaders that want to rule them with an iron fist.

Just look what has happend to Germany, Russia, Japan, and even to some extent China in the past 40 years. These countries have been through some of the most brutal regimes and now they are for the most part free to do what they please. Who do they have to thank? The good ol USofA.

It will take a while for Iraq to get to be a place like those countries, but remember it took about 8 years to rebuild Germany and recontruct its government after WWII. We are only a little more than a year into Iraq.

Iraq is slowly getting better and probably the worst thing that could happen over there is a change in administration here in America. All the confusion over there from a change in command and policies (not to mention the threat of the U.N. f'ing it up) would be disastorous.


----------



## sleepyjim (Jul 24, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I'm not even a Kerry supporter and folks wanted to take me to task for supporting his Vietnam duty?!? It is human nature to avoid putting yourself in uncomfortable situations and making your peers (whom I consider everyone on this board to be) accept yourself. I only defend his record because he has explained his stance without blinking an eye. He went and experienced Vietnam firsthand. I am also old enough to know how unpopular Vietnam was with the American people the day he started his service, Kerry was aware of this and still he went and fought for his country, to protect our freedom. If all this is so calculated for a political career, why would he risk his life and then change his mind.
> 
> *Kerry was a Commie lover and he lied and still does, check this out:
> http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecial...alReports\\archive\\200404\\SPE20040422a.html*
> ...


*No only the ones whop called the servicemembers killers, rapers and babykillers, those, like Kerry and jane Fonda, you know tyhe traitors. And while I'm at it how about a web site called Swift Boat vets for truth, it's here :http://coral.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=SwiftVetQuotes
where More than 250 Swift boat veterans have now signed an open letter to Senator Kerry challenging his fitness to serve as commander-in-chief of America's armed forces.

250 versus what maybe 4 or 5 that Kerry can produce, give me a break.*

Jim


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

summerkc said:


> I bet in 100 years we will look back on the Iraq war and see that it was the start of the fall of radical Islamism and the start of democracy in the middle east. It will start a peace there that no one has accomplished or tried to achieve in 4000 years.


My, but we're optimistic. I don't believe there will ever be a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Islamic fundamentalists will never completely disappear, and they will always hate the west for supporting Israel, and they will always hate each other.

That's not to say I don't support the war, it was definitely in the best interest of this country and undoubtedly increased our security. I just don't believe that in the long run it will make any progress in stabalizing the Middle East. I would just love to be proved wrong.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

summerkc said:


> All people want to be free, they just need someone powerful enough to remove the leaders that want to rule them with an iron fist.


I disagree with this, I beleive if people truely want to be free they will rise up without the help of some super power. You only need to look to the past for evidence of this; The American Revolution, the Storming of the Bastilles(sp), the protests in Tiananmen Square... in all of these events the citizens rose up against their oppressive, unfair, or unjust goverments without the help of some outside source and to this day their countries are better in some way or fashion for it. The idea of America being the world's liberating force is silghtly, no strick that, highly unsettling for me. Who are we to decide that democracy is right for everyone? We are the land of the free and beleive that every person, every where has a right to their natural freedoms, correct? Well, shouldn't they have the freedom to choose which type of goverment is right for them? I belevie that our form of democracy is the best form of goverment thus far but who knows what someone in another country which doesn't truely know what freedom is thinks.

I beleive we value our freedom becuase weare aware of what our ForeFathers gave up and put on the line to earn it for us, the Iraq's will know no such pride because they didn't have a hand in their own liberation...


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> I disagree with this, I beleive if people truely want to be free they will rise up without the help of some super power. You only need to look to the past for evidence of this; The American Revolution, the Storming of the Bastilles(sp), the protests in Tiananmen Square... in all of these events the citizens rose up against their oppressive, unfair, or unjust goverments without the help of some outside source and to this day their countries are better in some way or fashion for it. The idea of America being the world's liberating force is silghtly, no strick that, highly unsettling for me. Who are we to decide that democracy is right for everyone? We are the land of the free and beleive that every person, every where has a right to their natural freedoms, correct? Well, shouldn't they have the freedom to choose which type of goverment is right for them? I belevie that our form of democracy is the best form of goverment thus far but who knows what someone in another country which doesn't truely know what freedom is thinks.
> 
> I beleive we value our freedom becuase weare aware of what our ForeFathers gave up and put on the line to earn it for us, the Iraq's will know no such pride because they didn't have a hand in their own liberation...


Well, everyone does have the right to not be brutalized by their governments, and the Iraqis have had their fair share of that. No matter what form their government takes, beside dictatorship, they will be better off than before.

The Iraqis have tried to rise up against their government but were unsucessful. Why do you think Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds? When we were just the colonies and we decided to break away from England it was because of economic strangling and taxes, not because the English were killing thousands of us, raping children and wives in front of their fathers, and trying to take over countries. People were too afraid to speak out, he killed his own son-in-law for God's sake because he disagreed with him.

Why I do not think that American should liberate every country out there, we have the power and responsibility to do so in extreme cases like Iraq. If we fix these things before they get out of hand like in WWII, not only will be save people in other countries lives but in the long run will save American lives.

Iraq has had a huge hand in their liberation, with all of the terrorists in Iraq trying to disrupt the freedom process the newly trained police and government officials have a lot to deal with. They will have plenty of time to prove themselves, just look at the part of the world where they live.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

LeafHog said:


> My, but we're optimistic. I don't believe there will ever be a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Islamic fundamentalists will never completely disappear, and they will always hate the west for supporting Israel, and they will always hate each other.
> 
> That's not to say I don't support the war, it was definitely in the best interest of this country and undoubtedly increased our security. I just don't believe that in the long run it will make any progress in stabalizing the Middle East. I would just love to be proved wrong.


I think we will eventually get there, Islam and peace can co-exist and you can have a somewhat stable country. Turkey is the best example of this, even though Islam is their state sponsered religion, the country remains reletively peaceful.

Will it ever be like the U.S. and western Europe? Probably not. Islamic values are just not what Christian values are here and in Europe. And even though a lot of people are not religious they still stick to these values and don't go around killing Jews because they are Jews.

Even though people hate to say it, this is a holy war against Islam. The first thing that has to change before peace takes place is that mainstream Muslims have got to denounce suicide and other bombings of innocent people on purpose. Right now they are on the verge of actually endorsing it. And I know that we have killed innocent people, but we take all steps necessary to minimize the damage. We don't intentionally shoot missles at wedding parties .


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Found this on the Drudge site - very interesting development in terms of what President Bush may put forth in terms of a domestic agenda. Personally, I would like to see the IRS go away and the US go to a federal sales tax. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.

"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.

"“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so you’re almost obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise numbers don’t exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."

"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Yeah, I've heard about this for awhile and it sounds like a great idea, I just don't know if it will ever happen. 

What would happen is that the ONLY tax would be what is called a "consumption tax" which is basically a sales tax of like 20%. Sounds like a lot heh? Well it is actually works out to be less that you pay now. First you already pay 5%-9% sales tax anyway. Second, there is no tax on what you make, just want you spend! So any money that you save doesnt get taxed. Third, there is no IRS, no tax preparers to hire, no tax lawyers to hire, etc. Less red tape=less the governments needs to take from you. And forth, it will just save time for everyone.

So how does the government get enough money to operate? What I've heard is that because rich people buy such expensive stuff and there are no tax loopholes for the government to lose money, it adds up to about the same. In the end though, everybody saves money. 

It would be nice if this ever came into effect, I don't know if the tax attorney lobby would ever let that happen, especially if John Edwards the lawyer gets elected.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Dual working parents, traffic nightmares, high crime and fast food (the new economy)? I do not see how shipping off jobs with benefits and shipping in medical workers at base wages will help our economy or our country. What does "Made in America" mean to the Republican and Democratic Party? There was a time in my life when it meant something to say, "Made in America." If I have a question to ask either candidate it would be that.


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> .....The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.


That makes way to much sense for it to ever get thru Congress!!! :c


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

*Found these interesting tidbits and thought them worthy of posting.*

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

"We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

"We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children."

-- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"

"I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

"I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

"We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the "greater glory of the United States." We will not accept the rhetoric. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- in fact, we will find it hard to join anything at all and when we do, we will demand relevancy such as other organizations have recently been unable to provide. We will not take solace from the creation of monuments or the naming of parks after a select few of the thousands of dead Americans and Vietnamese. We will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim."

-- John Kerry, in "The New Soldier"

"There is a GI movement in this country now as well as over there, and soon these people, these men, who are prescribing wars for these young men to fight are going to find out they are going to have to find some other men to fight them because are going to change prescriptions. They are going to have to change doctors, because we are not going to fight for them. That is what they are going to realize."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

-- John Kerry in the Washington Star, June 6, 1971


----------



## Churchlady (Jan 22, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> I disagree with this, I beleive if people truely want to be free they will rise up without the help of some super power. You only need to look to the past for evidence of this; The American Revolution, the Storming of the Bastilles(sp), the protests in Tiananmen Square... in all of these events the citizens rose up against their oppressive, unfair, or unjust goverments without the help of some outside source and to this day their countries are better in some way or fashion for it. The idea of America being the world's liberating force is silghtly, no strick that, highly unsettling for me. Who are we to decide that democracy is right for everyone? We are the land of the free and beleive that every person, every where has a right to their natural freedoms, correct? Well, shouldn't they have the freedom to choose which type of goverment is right for them? I belevie that our form of democracy is the best form of goverment thus far but who knows what someone in another country which doesn't truely know what freedom is thinks.
> 
> I beleive we value our freedom becuase weare aware of what our ForeFathers gave up and put on the line to earn it for us, the Iraq's will know no such pride because they didn't have a hand in their own liberation...


Actually, the American revolution wouldn't have been won if Franklin hadn't convinced France to fight the brittish with us. We could have never defeated the brittish navy or army without them!! To a lesser extent we got money from the netherlands too... without which we couldn't have sustained our armies and morale enough to continue the fight. We'd all still be tea-drinkers (no offence to our brittish boardies)!

We have the ablility to enjoy our freedom because a world superpower (at that time) took a chance and helped a few rebellious folks in an occupied land to fight for their liberty!

Do I think that our type of democracy is the best? for us, yes, but for others, monarchy is working, but never dictatorship!!!


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

Churchlady said:


> Actually, the American revolution wouldn't have been won if *Franklin hadn't convinced France to fight the brittish with us. * We could have never defeated the brittish navy or army without them!! To a lesser extent we got money from the netherlands too... without which we couldn't have sustained our armies and morale enough to continue the fight. We'd all still be tea-drinkers (no offence to our brittish boardies)!
> 
> We have the ablility to enjoy our freedom because a world superpower (at that time) took a chance and helped a few rebellious folks in an occupied land to fight for their liberty!
> 
> Do I think that our type of democracy is the best? for us, yes, but for others, monarchy is working, but never dictatorship!!!


Exactly Churchlady, the French HELPED us defeat the British, they didn't do it for us... They didn't do it for us but at our urging, that is very diffrent than what happened in Iraq...


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> Exactly Churchlady, the French HELPED us defeat the British, they didn't do it for us... They didn't do it for us but at our urging, that is very diffrent than what happened in Iraq...


The whole point is that we wouldn't have won if we hadn't had help from another country with greater resources, the extent of the resources needed is determined by many factors. Some countries need more help, Iraq needed us to actually remove the government since they would be unable to do so by themselves.

Could the citizens of Iraq ever won against Saddams regime and military even if we had given them any resources they needed? Probably not, especially after being brutalized for so long, and against a military that was extremely loyal to its leader.

The Iraqi people, after major combat ended, have shown that they are very eager to setup a government and to be free. One of the coolest things I think that happend in Iraq, only weeks after Saddam was removed, is that there were many new newspapers started up and they have freedom to write whatever they want and critcize any side they feel without the fear of them or their families being killed.

Iraqi citizens always wanted what they have now, but had no hope that they could ever accomplish it during their lifetime. We removed Saddam in a matter of weeks without hardly damaging the infrastructure or loss of civilian life. If they had fought themselves who knows how many millions of civilians would had died. Maybe their freedom will not be as special as ours is, but at least it will be freedom.


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

The french helped when they saw an american victory in sight. When we werent doing so good the french couldnt be found.


----------



## mr.c (Apr 8, 2004)

A veterans group seeking to deeply discredit Democrat John Kerry's military service will charge in the new bombshell book UNFIT FOR COMMAND: 


*Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.


*All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.


*A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.


*Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.


*Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.


*Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months. 

The Kerry campaign is planning to vigorously counter the charges and will accuse the veteran's groups of being well-financed by a top Bush donor from Texas, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"They hired a goddamn private investigator to dig up trash!" charged a top Kerry adviser traveling with the senator late Tuesday. "This is pay for play, and the dirtiest of all dirty tricks ever played on a candidate for the presidency. How low can they go?" 

Kerry supporters are comparing the effort by the veterans to the Arkansas State troopers tell-all against Bill Clinton.

UNFIT FOR COMMAND will not be released until August 15.

The names. The details. All on the record.


Hmmmmmm Wonder how all this will play out?


----------



## oldgumby (Aug 4, 2004)

So the secret is to keep the non-cigar smokers at home.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

_Saw this article and thought it appropriate for this discussion topic considering it has to do with policy to fight terrorism!_

*Our Own Worst Enemy * 
_Why scrap a program that identified nine of the 19 hijackers? Ask civil libertarians._

BY HEATHER MAC DONALD 
Thursday, August 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Even as the Bush administration warns of an imminent terror attack, it is again allowing the "rights" brigades to dictate the parameters of national defense. The administration just cancelled a passenger screening system designed to keep terrorists off planes, acceding to the demands of "privacy" advocates. The implications of this for airline safety are bad enough. But the program's demise also signals a return to a pre-9/11 mentality, when pressure from the rights lobbies trumped security common sense.

The now-defunct program, the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, or Capps II, sought to make sure that air passengers are flying under their own identity and are not wanted as a terror suspect. It would have asked passengers to provide four pieces of information--name, address, phone number and birth date--when they make their reservation. That information would've been run against commercial records, to see if it matches up, then checked against government intelligence files to determine whether a passenger has possible terror connections. Depending on the outcome of those two checks, a passenger could have been screened more closely at the airport, or perhaps--if government intelligence on him raised alarms--not allowed to board.

Privacy advocates on both the right and the left attacked Capps II from the moment it was announced. They called it an eruption of a police state, and envisioned a gallimaufry of bizarre hidden agendas--from a pretext for oppressing evangelical Christians and gun owners, to a blank check for discriminating against blacks.

Contrary to the rights lobby, Capps II was not:

• A privacy intrusion. Passengers already give their name, address and phone number to make a flight reservation, without the slightest fuss. Adding birth date hardly changes the privacy ledger: The government and the private sector have our birth dates on file now for social security and commercial credit, among numerous other functions. Far from jealously guarding their name and address, Americans dispense personal information about themselves with abandon, in order to enjoy a multitude of consumer conveniences. (Anyone with a computer can find out reams more about us than is even hinted at in the Capps II passenger records.)

• A surveillance system. Neither the government nor the airlines would have kept any of the information beyond the safe completion of a flight. The government would have had no access to the commercial records used to check a passenger's alleged identity; those would have remained with the commercial data providers contracted to provide identity verification.

• A data mining program. This misunderstood technology seeks to use computers to spot suspicious patterns or anomalies in large data bases, sometimes for predictive analysis. Capps II had nothing to do with data mining; it was simply a primitive two-step data query system.

The advocates' most effective strategy for killing off Capps II was to bludgeon airlines into not cooperating with its development. Northwest Airlines and Jet Blue were already facing billions of dollars in lawsuits for specious "privacy" violations, trumped up by the advocates in reprisal for those airlines' earlier cooperation with the war on terror. No other airline was willing to take on a similar risk and provide passenger data to stress-test Capps II. Without the capacity to be tested, Capps II was doomed.

The Department of Homeland Security has already shown itself a weakling in bureaucratic turf battles; its capitulation to the "privocrats" means it is all but toothless. It was just such a cave-in by the Clinton administration that eased the way for the 9/11 attacks. Under pressure from the Arab and rights lobbies, the Clintonites agreed in 1997 that passengers flagged as suspicious by the then-existing flight screening system would not be interviewed. Allowing security personnel to interview suspicious flyers, it was argued, would amount to racial and ethnic profiling. On 9/11, the predecessor to Capps II identified nine of the 19 hijackers as potentially dangerous, including all five terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 77. But pursuant to the rights-dictated rules, the only consequence of that identification was that the hijackers' checked luggage was screened for hidden explosives. Had the killers themselves been interviewed, there is a significant chance that their plot would've been uncovered.

Since the demise of Capps II, the privocrats have tipped their hand: Their real agenda isn't privacy, but a crippling of all security measures. Leading advocate Edward Hasbrouck has decried both a voluntary "registered traveler" option, in which passengers agree to a background check in order to circumvent some security measures, and physical screening at the gate. Bottom line: Any security precautions prior to flight constitute a civil liberties violation. It is mystifying why the government should pay heed to people who so disregard the public good.

It is difficult to know where we go from here. There is no way to keep a terrorist from flying without first trying to determine who he is. Yet the most innocuous identity verification system prior to a flight is now seen as tantamount to illegal surveillance. With the rights advocates back in the saddle of national security, al Qaeda can blithely get on with its business.

_Ms. Mac Donald is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. _

:u


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I had thought the Bush campaign would be a little more intelligent, they have no problem with it, yet. Now they've got McCain upset, it's only August 5th......I think this is going to be one of the most amazing presidential races, ever perhaps. 
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...05/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain&cid=694&ncid=2043


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

The Bush campaign isn't running these ads. That said, I'm more interested in knowing if the claims (by the former Swift boat guys, medics and commanders) is true or not.

BTW: I didn't see McCain getting his briefs in a wad over Moore's lies and innuendos in Farenheit 9/11? If Sen. McCain hates nasty stuff like the Swift boater's ads, where was he when he could have been publicly denouncing Moore with as much vigor. Just asking. Anyone know?


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I have to agree with what McCain says, 

"It reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal." 

John McCain is the man, he tows the line and speaks with integrity. He supports Bush and knows Vietnam from inside the walls of the Hanoi Hilton. If he's PO'd about these men disparaging Kerry, I'm listening to him. If he's not talking about Michael Moore, it's because he's probably risen above it. He is one of the reasons I'm still undecided. 

It is in poor taste, IMO to attack a mans military duty, now I'm aware that this man wants to be the President, but of the three Purple Hearts, which one was faked? Or were all three just cheap trinkets the Military hands out? I'm as disillusioned and jaded as the next guy, but of the Bronze star and Silver star, a mans life saved, 3 Purple Hearts....of the five medals, I don't think he could of faked the Brass on all counts. Contrary to SwiftVets, they do not just give them away, ask the SwiftVets how easy it was to get theirs. 

Even now as the day goes by the Bush Campaign has condemned the ad. Earlier they hadn't. I know this is special interest money, not the Bush Campaign, I mean I read the article before I posted it.  This is just one more day and the campaign is truly amazing.

Now the Moveon.org. is having a 40 shows in 30 days Rock-a-thon in October. All donated by Millionaire Rockstars. This is already ruffling some feathers big time. And it's only August 6th! What will tomorrow bring?


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

The most amazing thing is that the democrats are all upset and going crazy over this "hateful" ad and that it is funded by some rich republican guy that started a 527 group (527 groups do not have to conform to campaign finance laws because they are supposedly not controlled by any party). A rich republican? George Soros has given 15 MILLION to moveon.org and a couple of other liberal 527 groups wich have aired hundreds of ads attacking Bush, but thats ok of course, this guy has given about $200,000.

The only reason that republicans are making an issue of Kerry's veitnam record is that HE has made it THE issue of his campaign. That 4 months in Nam 35 years ago is the reason he says that he is fit to be commander in chief. What is the other side supposed to do, especially when 95% of the swift boat captains say he is unfit for the job?

The reason Kerry only brings up Nam record is that for the last 20 years in the senate his record has been horrible and he knows it. He knows that if he made that his platform his campaign would be over by September. 

I applaud Kerry service in Vietnam, whatever his motivation, but if he is going to say that is the reason to vote for him, I will attack his less than stellar record there. I don't know why McCain is defending him, he has admitted that while he was a POW his captors used to cite Kerry's testimony in front of congress to bring down the morale of him and to give proof that he was guilty of war crimes and belonged to be there. 

Kerry's rhetoric then and now have made American troops less safe and have given our enemy comfort. No matter how long he served his country, that is just not excusable and boarderline treasonous.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I respect Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I respect all who served in Vietnam and think any of them should be listened to, including those who oppose Senator Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans with the commercial have an opinion of Senator Kerry based largely on his actions before the Senate in 1971 and his activities in protesting the war.

I happen to agree with this group of veterans that Senator Kerry's words before the Senate and to the public were lies and cost American lives in Vietnam by protracting the war. I think Senator Kerry betrayed his fellow servicemen in Vietnam by his words and actions after his service. 

I don't have any problem with Senator Kerry having protested the war after his service, but the way he did it by claiming war crimes were pervasive and committed on a daily basis was wrong given the fact this was not a true portrayal of those who fought in Vietnam.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Hey since we are on the Vietnam Topic, I know some of you may be interested in statistics, The fighting 15th field Artillery Regiment have put together a quick reference of the whole War....check it out, A knock up job if you ask me. There are many, many other overviews on the net, this one is just quick and starts in 1950.........not political, I promise. 

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

I feel I would be remiss not to include this link

http://www.nps.gov/vive/home.htm

or this

http://thewall-usa.com/


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

*Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong *

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe ("Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry") which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry's actions during and after Kerry's time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below. 
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today's edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played. [See both affidavits below.]

"Additional documentation will follow. The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry's military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Below is a link to a video the RNC has produced regarding Senator Kerry's position on Iraq. Quite interesting...

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/


----------



## KingMeatyHand (Mar 21, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Below is a link to a video the RNC has produced regarding Senator Kerry's position on Iraq. Quite interesting...
> 
> http://www.kerryoniraq.com/


Interesting video, thanks for the link.


----------



## jb- (Jul 27, 2004)

Here's hoping this poll represents the outcome of the election!

Proud to be the only Republican in Memphis...


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

jb- said:


> Here's hoping this poll represents the outcome of the election!
> 
> Proud to be the only Republican in Memphis...


At least Tennessee goes GOP (along with my state of Indiana), the best part in the last election was when Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee, his home state!

Good times.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

It appears Senator Kerry was caught in a discrepancy about his post-Vietnam statements. Here is a link outlining those statements: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128561,00.html

In an Oct. 14, 1979, letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, Kerry wrote: "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, also talked about his experience during a speech on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986. "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia," Kerry said.

The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls from Fox News, there was still no clarification.

There are two factual problems here: 1) Senator Kerry said that Nixon was the President, but this is wrong - Johnson was the President. I think this is a fabrication to make the Republican party look bad, that they were lying to the American public. 2) Senator Kerry never was in Cambodia. Swift boats did not go to Cambodia and there were patrols on the border to ensure boats did not cross into Cambodia. Again, Senator Kerry is trying to make the US government look bad. For what motive, I am unsure.

Well, that is my humble opine today! :u


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Wetterhorn, just admit it, your going to vote for Bush aren't you! I can sense it. :w


----------



## (909) (Jul 27, 2004)

I voted for Bush last go around just after receiving my citizenship from the US. I like what Bush has done except for his posture on illegal immigration and his record on environmental issues. California is getting hammered by illegals with hospitals in receivership, schools overloaded, law enforcement overworked etc. If live in another state other than Ariz, Calif, Texas, you can say what you want, but we are seeing it first hand, the influx is overwhelming. As a legal immigrant to this country, I understand why you would want to live in the U.S., it is the finest country on the planet. I am pro immigration, legal immigration that is and it can and should be available. CLOSE THE BORDERS, CONTROL THE INFLUX!!

On environmental issues, the Bush admin is a disaster, Bush said that he would fix the Nat'l Parks, as yet he has done nothing that I know of. He attempted to override the Calif states right to refuse drilling off the coastline. He has allowed more cutting of trees within the Nat'l Parks of Calif etc, etc, etc. 

I'm no tree hugger but I'd like to see something left for my kids and grandkids and so on.

I don't like Kerry's flopping around like a trout on a rocky shore, I just don't trust him. I don't like Bush's attempt to appease Vicente Fox on immigration or the admin policies on environmentl issues. I don't know what I'll do.

Anyone else in the same boat?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Wetterhorn, just admit it, your going to vote for Bush aren't you! I can sense it. :w


Holy cow, I have been found out!


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

(909) said:


> I don't know what I'll do.
> 
> Anyone else in the same boat?


Not me. There is one overriding issue in this election and that is national security, specifically, the war against terrorists. I trust Bush far, far more to handle this issue than I do Kerry. I see Kerry as too "wishy-washy," for lack of a better term, when it comes to making tough decisions.

BTW: As for your comments on Bush doing more for the national parks, etc.... there are a lot of things he said he would fix/change/improve/etc. Then came 9/11 and his priorities changed a bit.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Selectively cutting trees down in a forest and replanting (which companies must do) actually make a forest healthier. Just look what has been happening with all the wildfires lately. Untouched forests have the problem of becoming too overgrown and burn like crazy. The reason for all of the wildfires is because they are so protected no one is able to take care of them the way they need to be taken care of.

There was a scientific study about this but I'm just to lazy to find it...


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

(909) said:


> I voted for Bush last go around just after receiving my citizenship from the US. I like what Bush has done except for his posture on illegal immigration and his record on environmental issues. California is getting hammered by illegals with hospitals in receivership, schools overloaded, law enforcement overworked etc. If live in another state other than Ariz, Calif, Texas, you can say what you want, but we are seeing it first hand, the influx is overwhelming. As a legal immigrant to this country, I understand why you would want to live in the U.S., it is the finest country on the planet. I am pro immigration, legal immigration that is and it can and should be available. CLOSE THE BORDERS, CONTROL THE INFLUX!!
> 
> On environmental issues, the Bush admin is a disaster, Bush said that he would fix the Nat'l Parks, as yet he has done nothing that I know of. He attempted to override the Calif states right to refuse drilling off the coastline. He has allowed more cutting of trees within the Nat'l Parks of Calif etc, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you. I really dislike Bush but Kerry is a quiverring mass of indecision who can't take a stand on any serious issue for more than 30secs. I know everyone else has made up there minds on who they're going to vote for, but I'm going to wait until the debates are over to really decide. Hopefully Kerry will find the courage to make a decison on some serious issues and prove that he is capable of leading this country better than Bush has. It really is just a choice of the lesser of two evils..as a servicemember I don't trust Kerry to give the military the support it needs, his voting record proves that he is as anti-military as they come...but Bush is no better, tax cuts for the wealthly will the midddle-class fight two wars half-way around the world?

I was honestly hoping my first chance to vote in a presidential election would have been a little more cut and dry, no matter who I vote for I know I'm going to have doubts and quite possibly be sorry in the long run...


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> tax cuts for the wealthly will the midddle-class fight two wars half-way around the world?


Bush's cut taxes for every income level, except people who don't pay taxes. The truth is that 10% of the population pays 90% of the taxes, if you want a tax cut to have any effect on the economy you have to cut the the taxes on the people who will pump money into the economy by starting businesses, buying luxary items, etc.

If you are really sick of paying taxes, keep democrats out of office that keep enacting social programs and raising our taxes. The only place where they don't want to spend more money than republicans is defense, and look where that has gotten us.

P.S. I am in the lowest tax bracket (poor flight instructor) so I'm not voting for Bush because I got rich off of him being in office.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

summerkc said:


> Bush's cut taxes for every income level, except people who don't pay taxes. The truth is that 10% of the population pays 90% of the taxes, if you want a tax cut to have any effect on the economy you have to cut the the taxes on the people who will pump money into the economy by starting businesses, buying luxary items, etc.
> 
> If you are really sick of paying taxes, keep democrats out of office that keep enacting social programs and raising our taxes. The only place where they don't want to spend more money than republicans is defense, and look where that has gotten us.
> 
> P.S. I am in the lowest tax bracket (poor flight instructor) so I'm not voting for Bush because I got rich off of him being in office.


The wealthy didn't spend the tax money they got back, they saved it..that's the reason they're rich, they have more money than they can spend so why give them more? A higher tax break for the middle-class and poor woud have done more for the economy becuase they would have spent it for sure, they spend the majority of thier income anyways... You didn't hear me say I'm sick of paying taxes, quite the opposite I'm pround to pay taxes and would pay more if need be:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> The wealthy didn't spend the tax money they got back, they saved it..that's the reason they're rich, they have more money than they can spend so why give them more?


The rich people are rich because they INVEST and grow their money and businesses. Do you think Bill Gates is rich because microsoft just magically made a bunch of money in one day and he can't spend it fast enough? The reason is because microsoft invests in new ventures, products, employers, equipment, etc. which causes the economy to improve. They hire new employees (you and me) to help make Bill Gates and Microsoft richer, which makes Microsoft be able to pay you and me more, which we then spend in the economy.

I don't have the funds to hire and pay a bunch of new employees and buy new equipment, and until the tax breaks neither did some companies.



> A higher tax break for the middle-class and poor woud have done more for the economy becuase they would have spent it for sure, they spend the majority of thier income anyways...


The whole point is that the amount of money that the middle-class and poor f(the poor pay $0 in taxes anyway, after refunds) is not enough to even produce a blip in the economy.

The next time you get angry at wealthy people getting tax breaks, remember it might just be the reason you have a job.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

summerkc said:


> The next time you get angry at wealthy people getting tax breaks, remember it might just be the reason you have a job.


I'm not angry that the wealthy get tax breaks, I just think it would be better used else where. And I know for a fact that they are not the reason I have a job...


----------



## Bman (Jun 10, 2003)

Treyjo you seem like a pretty smart guy but I can tell you you are wrong about the rich. Those folks don't just sit on a pile of money, they invest and those investment are what creates jobs. I belive your still pretty young yet and it might not be what you want to belive but as you get older you will find how true this is. This isn't a personal attack... I've always enjoyed your post... Go back and find my post called Why Taxes... maybe some light will be shed for you and if not we will have different opinions... But I know I'm right   IMHO Bman


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Bman said:


> Treyjo. I belive your still pretty young yet and it might not be what you want to belive but as you get older you will find how true this is.


Hey now, watch age slurs, I'm 23 and like to think I got this politics thing pretty well figured out. Now if I could just figure out cigars... 

BTW, if you want to learn the truth about politics, economics, social issues, etc. and can't stand Rush Limbaugh and some other talk radio hosts, listen to Michael Medved. I think he is one of the best talk radio host around and he is very nice and patient with liberal callers (which he most lets through).

That being said, Rush is still the smartest and most correct host out there, I just know he pushes buttons with the left (maybe because he is right all the time)


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> That being said, Rush is still the smartest and most correct host out there, I just know he pushes buttons with the left (maybe because he is right all the time)


Rush Limbaugh makes me sleepy. You've got to be kidding me if you don't know what he's going to talk about? Then he repeats himself over and over and over....as if moving on is too hard for me. :s I would rather listen to a gardening show anyday.

Fox News on the other hand at least can be funny, We Report, You Decide! As if other News Networks make me report, then have them decide. They do crack me up, especially that one dude with the eyebrows.

Bill Gates has been using some of his tax break money, $100 million to be exact to build a factory in Hyderabad, India where he plans to double the staff by 2005. Just one of his many investments overseas, he can save 50 to 70% in costs by outsourcing these once american jobs. They're gone and it is real, everybody I know in this area has been affected by it. We all no somebody who lost a job due to outsourcing.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

Bman said:


> Treyjo you seem like a pretty smart guy


I don't know what gave you that idea, I assure you I'm not:r



Bman said:


> Those folks don't just sit on a pile of money, they invest and those investment are what creates jobs.


Well, I think of saving as an investment since it does acrue(sp) intrest, but that wasn't my point exactly. I don't think Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy at all. There are ebbs and flows in the economy and it generally corrects itself, we went into a small reccesion and the economy fixed/is fixing itself, I believe the Feds interest rate cuts did more for the economy than Bush's tax cuts...thats all I was saying. For the record, I have no problems with the wealthy, they made their money and can do with it as they please...


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Treyjo43...

May I humbly suggest two books for you. From what you have said here, I can only conclude you have never read either of them.

_Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy_ by Thomas Sowell

_Capitalism and Freedom_ by Milton Friedman


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

This is an amazing thread, being one to be of a more liberal bent than the majority of folks on here, I still figure I'll post my patridiot ideals (as KingMeatyHand kindly calls' me) The economy is a real window into the National Psyche. Here are some thoughts from Peter G. Peterson's book Running on Empty,

Mr. Peterson himself notes that nine-tenths of baby boomers think ''government has made financial promises to [their] generation that it will not be able to keep." The guarantee of a secure retirement is already being rescinded in the minds of the citizenry, if not yet in the statute books.

But Mr. Peterson also entertains a darker possibility: that ''our national leaders are providing the American people with precisely what they want." Debt, he notes, is particularly alluring in periods of partisan intransigence. If the two sides cannot compromise on priorities, each can take what it wants while dumping the bill on future generations. Americans used to understand this temptation and flee it. Thomas Jefferson warned: ''To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude."

So it may be that some terrible change has come over the national psychology that admits to only two diagnoses. Either the complexity of government has outrun the capacity of a democratic public to understand it, or that public, understanding well the options Jefferson put before it, has chosen servitude.........


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> So it may be that some terrible change has come over the national psychology that admits to only two diagnoses. Either the complexity of government has outrun the capacity of a democratic public to understand it, or that public, understanding well the options Jefferson put before it, has chosen servitude.........


Wow, either way. Never heard it put that way before, have to check out this book.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Mr. Peterson himself notes that nine-tenths of baby boomers think ''government has made financial promises to [their] generation that it will not be able to keep." The guarantee of a secure retirement is already being rescinded in the minds of the citizenry, if not yet in the statute books.


Why would you want to rely on the government to secure your retirement? This is why I want to be able to invest my own money for my retirement, not the government who only makes a 2.5% return on Social Security.

The whole problem with the U.S. government is that too many people rely on it. I have never worried if the government and social security will have enough money to support me when I retire, I worry about whether I will have SAVED enough money to retire. If I have a few hundred extra per month that I get from S.S. to spend on ISOMs, good deal, but I'm not going to rely on it.

All of the programs have gotten out of hand, the role of our government should be only to protect us, not spoonfeed us by taking everyones money. If you want the government to take everything everyone makes and distribute it to everyone, move to Cuba (sounds good, just remember you cant afford the cigars you make). When people stop having self-initiative and start relying on the government for everything, we are in big trouble. No one will work, no one will pay taxes, and Canada will take over the country (ok, maybe that wouldn't happen, we'll still have rocks to throw at them and defeat them  )


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

flipflop said:


> Treyjo43...
> 
> May I humbly suggest two books for you. From what you have said here, I can only conclude you have never read either of them.
> 
> ...


Well FlipFlop, my pride is only slightly bruised at your implication that I'm an Economics Imbecile:r:fu

But since I am, I will check out the books you mentioned and will hopefully progress from an Economics Imbecile to an Economics Moron:r


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> Well FlipFlop, my pride is only slightly bruised at your implication that I'm an Economics Imbecil
> 
> But since I am, I will check out the books you mentioned and will hopefully progress from an Economics Imbecile to an Economics Moron


I wouldn't worry, economists are economics imbeciles, and probably ALL government officials are. 

If only Washington D.C. listened to Club Stogie, the world would be a utopia.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> Why would you want to rely on the government to secure your retirement? This is why I want to be able to invest my own money for my retirement, not the government who only makes a 2.5% return on Social Security.
> 
> The whole problem with the U.S. government is that too many people rely on it. I have never worried if the government and social security will have enough money to support me when I retire, I worry about whether I will have SAVED enough money to retire. If I have a few hundred extra per month that I get from S.S. to spend on ISOMs, good deal, but I'm not going to rely on it.
> )


You don't care if the govt. which controls your pensions and regulates your investments defaults on your money? Servitude is OK? I don't quite understand why it would not bother you if your elected officials took your money, then said you don't get it. If a business or bank did this wouldn't that slightly anger you? If SS defaults, how are your other investments going to look? Your other plans may not workout either because the past 3 years have been pretty devastating on pensions in the USA. I'm afraid if we do not change our course soon, we'll see plenty of unsocial insecurity.

Pension Tension

Published: August 8, 2004, NYTimes

First it was the steel companies. Now it's the airlines. Is the auto industry next?

In the past three years, bankrupt companies, mostly in unionized, old-economy industries, have dumped $11.2 billion in pension obligations on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the federal agency that insures the pensions of 44 million people. As a result, the agency has gone from having a $7.7 billion surplus in 2001 to an estimated deficit of about $9.7 billion. And the situation may soon become much worse. The agency now faces a possible $5 billion default by United Airlines and the prospect of more airline defaults. Plenty of other companies, like Goodyear, also have seriously underfunded pension plans.

Not surprisingly, the specter of a taxpayer bailout hangs over the pension agency, inviting comparisons to the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. Things are not that bad - yet. As long as the economy and stock market improve, so should many pensions, since their health is tied to prevailing financial conditions.

But in one way, the S.&L. comparison is apt. In the 1980's, government missteps exacerbated the S.&L. crisis. Today, again, government bears some responsibility for current pension problems. Congress must take steps now, both to strengthen pensions and the agency that insures them.

To begin, lawmakers should allow companies to overfund their pensions to build a cushion for hard times. Currently, Congress restricts overfunding, ostensibly to prevent companies from stashing excess cash in tax-sheltered pensions. But another reason lawmakers restrict contributions is that doing so forces companies to pay taxes on income that would otherwise go into pensions, thus raising revenue to improve the government's own dismal budget outlook. The result of this self-serving machination is that many companies entered the recent economic downturn with less in their plans than would otherwise have been the case.

To protect taxpayers, Congress should raise the amount it charges companies for pension insurance. Currently, premiums are estimated to be underpriced by one-sixth to one-half - a dangerously high dose of corporate welfare. The pension agency should also be given the authority to freeze a seriously troubled pension when an employer stops contributing to it, as United did recently.

These are tough remedies for a tough problem. But Congress would do better to tackle the problem now rather than wait until after a full-blown crisis


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me. Either way, I have no idea what we are talking about. 

What I meant is that I don't want the government taking money out of MY check for them to make lousy investments. I want to do it myself. Yes it would piss me off if I had been paying into social security for 20 years and then I got nothing, but since I'm 23 (I think this is where we went went wrong) I havn't paid much into it yet and I hope they change it soon so I can do my own investing.

I will be flying for an airline probably next year (flight instruction to build hours sucks) so I know how Delta, USAir, and Continental pilots are getting screwed, hopefully I wont have the problem since I hope to fly for UPS or FEDex that doesnt really have the problems that passenger carriers have.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

summerkc said:


> I wouldn't worry, economists are economics imbeciles, and probably ALL government officials are.
> 
> If only Washington D.C. listened to Club Stogie, the world would be a utopia.


I don't know if the world would be a utopia, but it would definitely smoke better cigars!


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> Either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me. Either way, I have no idea what we are talking about.


Did my wife put you up to writing that? :r 

My bad. I think what your thinking of is the option to invest the money your forced to give to SS and take it and invest in your own portfolio, or actually ween off SS all together. Both very risky, I think you'll do fine, your a bright guy, but many folks have a hard time making a left turn with a blinker, let alone plan for their retirement. I do agree about goverment regulating all aspects of exsistance. The airlines are regulated to the max, so is my industry, shipping. Almost every decision I make at work has a CFR.

summerkc, got a question, what is your favorite plane to fly, commercial wise?


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Did my wife put you up to writing that? :r
> 
> My bad. I think what your thinking of is the option to invest the money your forced to give to SS and take it and invest in your own portfolio, or actually ween off SS all together. Both very risky, I think you'll do fine, your a bright guy, but many folks have a hard time making a left turn with a blinker, let alone plan for their retirement. I do agree about goverment regulating all aspects of exsistance. The airlines are regulated to the max, so is my industry, shipping. Almost every decision I make at work has a CFR.
> 
> summerkc, got a question, what is your favorite plane to fly, commercial wise?


 Ah, good ol CFRs, we have the FARs, and basically they could take my license away anytimg they wanted, just use the FAR "no pilot can undertake in any careless and wreakless operation". Its the catch all of regulations.

As for the airplane I'd go 747, it just amazing 600,000 pounds of anything can get off the ground. My favorite plane to fly would be the 727 or maybe an older 747, there are an endless amount of buttons to push and switches to flip! These new fandagled airplane are too automated if you ask me, it takes all of that fun human error out of the equation.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Treyjo43 said:


> Well FlipFlop, my pride is only slightly bruised at your implication that I'm an Economics Imbecile:r:fu


Whew! I'm so glad it was only "slightly bruised." I was truly worried about your pride.



Treyjo43 said:


> But since I am, I will check out the books you mentioned and will hopefully progress from an Economics Imbecile to an Economics Moron:r


At least it will be an improvement on what is your present knowledge of the subject. :r


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Hey President Bush is going to spend the night a few miles down the road from me tonight. I won't be able to go and see him because, well, I guess because I have no money.  How do these rich guys keep getting more money? 

Have heard from a few news sources if you call Ralph Nader he'll talk to you about his policies, in person. That is class. I'm no Nader fan, but that is classy.... 

Tonight's reception will be at the home of former Simpson Timber board Chairman Gary Reed in the ritzy suburb of Medina. Gary Reed's crib is a few blocks north of Bill Gates trailer park. 

Participants will pay $2,500 per person to attend, $10,000 for a photograph with the president, or $25,000 for a picture and a private reception. The take will be used for get-out-the-vote efforts. President Bush expects to raise over $1.75 million tonight. 

I expect to win $25 in poker with a few of the greatest men in the world, tonight, in my garage! :w :r


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I expect to win $25 in poker with a few of the greatest men in the world, tonight, in my garage!


A much superior way to spend the evening!!


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Participants will pay $2,500 per person to attend, $10,000 for a photograph with the president, or $25,000 for a picture and a private reception. The take will be used for get-out-the-vote efforts. President Bush expects to raise over $1.75 million tonight.


I suggest you spend the $2,500 on beer, $10,000 on cigars and the $25,000 on Alaskan King Crab Legs! That would be a much better night than with Pres. Bush


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Found this in an article and thought the point Christopher Adamo made was valid. (So you will know where he is coming from, here is a very brief bio of Mr. Adamo. He was born in Cheyenne Wyoming, but has lived in several places, ranging from the East Coast to the West Coast, before settling back in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has held an interest in politics for many years and has worked within the Wyoming GOP as well as the Wyoming Christian Coalition.)

"Every decent American ought to be thoroughly outraged by what has transpired in response to the ads being run by those Swift Boat veterans contesting John Kerry's accounts of his heroics during Vietnam. Rather than merely refute their claims, dark forces are working to suppress their efforts to speak out on this subject. Unfortunately, with too few Americans understanding the threat posed by those who would forcibly subdue others with whom they disagree, the reaction to this infuriating episode has been minimal. ... When was the notion established that free speech must pass some government test for accuracy in order to be permissible? Is it John McCain alone who should have the final say as to who can speak in public and who cannot, based solely on his arrogant assessment of the worthiness or accuracy of their statements? McCain's vindictiveness towards the veterans, based not on their real credibility but instead on their previous association with others who had worked to thwart his political ambitions, is indicative of the very seed of tyranny that the founders most feared. Clearly, the framers of the First Amendment crafted it in such a manner as to ensure that individuals such as John McCain would never have the prerogative to use the laws of an out-of-control government to subdue their opposition."


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

I don't think Kerry is anything special, but as far as I am concerned Bush is an idiot who is probably the worst public speaker I've ever seen. and probably couldn't pass a 7th grade english course. Here's one quality Bush quote.

"Some say, 'give it to the taxpayers who pay the bills.' That some is George W. Bush."

I mean come on, I did better giving my speech running for 5th grade president.


Plus joining the National Guard during Vietnam isn't cool.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

summerkc said:


> I suggest you spend the $2,500 on beer, $10,000 on cigars and the $25,000 on Alaskan King Crab Legs! That would be a much better night than with Pres. Bush


hahaha. $10,000 for a picture with him? I'll superimpose your picuture into one with him for $20.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> I don't think Kerry is anything special, but as far as I am concerned Bush is an idiot who is probably the worst public speaker I've ever seen. and probably couldn't pass a 7th grade english course. Here's one quality Bush quote.
> 
> "Some say, 'give it to the taxpayers who pay the bills.' That some is George W. Bush."
> 
> ...


I will take issue with your remarks. President Bush received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard. President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.

Yale and Harvard do not just hand out degrees. They are tough universities that require much of their students. Unless you have proof that indicates otherwise (in terms of President Bush receiving these degrees fraudulently), I would say these degrees indicate the man has a good deal of intelligence. I agree, he isn't the best public speaker, but that does not mean he is not intelligent.

I am a member of the American Legion and have many friends who are or were in the National Guard, including some who were in the Guard during the Vietnam era. My very good friend David joined the Guard in 1963 and was never called up to serve in Vietnam. He continued to serve for 31 years in the Guard and near the end of his career he was called up to go to Desert Storm. He proudly served in Iraq and was in the Euphrates River Valley during the flanking movement conducted by the armored division he was attached to.

Other of my Guard friends served in Vietnam flying medivacs. These same men stayed in the Guard and also went to Iraq. Sons of these men are now in Iraq serving (both Guard members) and they also went to Bosnia.

To say that joining the National Guard isn't 'cool' is absolutely incorrect and a degrading to those who have served this country through the Guard over the years; including the Vietnam era.

:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> I don't think Kerry is anything special, but as far as I am concerned Bush is an idiot who is probably the worst public speaker I've ever seen. and probably couldn't pass a 7th grade english course.


So you are saying that the only people that should be allowed to be president are well-spoken aristocrat types?

I personally like Bush because he seems like a really nice down to earth guy that I could see having a chat with. Who around here would like to talk to John "Frankenstien" Kerry?

And if you think Bush is an idiot you are severly wrong, remember back in the 2000 election when everybody thought Bush was going to get clobbered in the debates with Al Gore? Most people came away with the impression that Bush won all of the debates.

Just wait until the debates with Kerry, "Dubya" is going to make it a blood bath, maybe Kerry will actually earn a Purple Heart for once. :u


----------



## ElkTwin (Aug 14, 2004)

I don't vote, it just encourages them. :sb


----------



## Quixote (Oct 27, 2003)

NewGeneration85 said:


> "Some say, 'give it to the taxpayers who pay the bills.' That some is George W. Bush."
> 
> I mean come on, I did better giving my speech running for 5th grade president.


So that I may judge your political acumen...

Did you win?

-Q


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

NewGeneration85 said:


> I don't think Kerry is anything special, but as far as I am concerned Bush is an idiot who is probably the worst public speaker I've ever seen.


Hmmmm. Bush has an BA from Yale and MBA from Harvard. I didn't reallize those prestigious universities were handing out degrees to idiots.

I'll agree, to an extent, that Bush is not a very good public speaker. Of course, many revered leaders of nations have been "less than adequate" in that respect; Gandhi, Eisenhower, DeGaulle, Mandela. Then again, some great public speakers have been people like Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini.

My point is that it is far more important WHAT a person says and HOW they lead than the way they give speeches.



NewGeneration85 said:


> and probably couldn't pass a 7th grade english course.


Or pass the English requirements at Yale?  (BTW: Kerry went to Yale too.)



NewGeneration85 said:


> Plus joining the National Guard during Vietnam isn't cool.


One friend from HS and one from college died in Nam. Both were in the National Guard. I doubt your comment would be taken as easily by their families. 

BTW: Do a little research and you'll find Bush's Texas Air Guard unit was on the potential call up list for Nam but were never deployed. Dig a little further and you'll find some other interesting info about that unit.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Plus joining the National Guard during Vietnam isn't cool.


You might wanna rethink your stance on that, many many Natinal Guardsmen gave thier lives serving valiantly in Vietnam, Korea,Iraq(part I and II) and the numerous other conflicts that have occured in the past 50yrs. The Guard is just like any of the other services, they risk thier lives for the Freedom of America and the World, so show them some respect!


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

I served during Vietnam. In general, getting into the guard was a way of avoiding Vietnam. Some went. Bush, after the gov't spent a lot of money training him to be a pilot, never took his final physical so that he would not qualify to fly. Furthermore, it is well known that he did not even show up for his national guard duty for 5 months and was considered AWOL. While he was Governor in Texas, they "lost" the records to save him the embarassment.

I don't know why right-wingers can't give Kerry his due when it comes to Vietnam. You don't have to vote for him if you don't want to. But it is perfectly clear that Bush skated out of Vietnam using his father's influence and Kerry went and served our country proudly. I would think the right wing would have enough sense to stay away from this issue.

Personally, I was opposed to the Vietnam war, however I believed in service to my country, wasn't about to leave the country or go to jail, so I served. Serving during Vietnam was a thankless task. To witness the Bush administration slandering John Kerry for his service while the President and his cronies flaked out, strikes a chord personally with me. I hope they burn in hell for it.


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

When I first saw the results to the Club Stogie presidential poll, it made me wonder. Do cigars prevent smokers from thinking clearly? Then I found out that the results were being tabulated in Florida. No wonder!


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

The following is a brief history of the Guard's participation in Vietnam. Ninetyseven National Guardsmen were killed in Vietnam. For more information on the Guard's history, you can follow this link: http://www.ranger95.com/military_history/ng_history/index.html

*War in Southeast Asia*

While the Army Guard struggled through these numerous reorganizations, American political and military involvement in the Republic of Vietnam was growing. United States ground combat forces had been committed in March 1965, and Vietnam began to siphon off an ever-increasing share of our miltitary resources. Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to use the reserves to meet manpower demands. However, President Lyndon Johnson felt that to do so would make too clear the extent of our military involvement, and turn the American people against the war. Johnson preferred to get his manpower by increasing the size of the draft--and decision which would have far-reaching consequences for the Army and for the National Guard.

The Viet Cong's Tet Offensive of January 1968, coming as it did after Americans had been told repeatedly that there was "light at the end of the tunnel," struck like a bombshell. For a month, Johnson and his political advisors debated various reserve mobilization plans, as requests for more troops poured in from Saigon. Finally, in April, the new Secretary of Defense announced the mobilization of 76 reserve component units.

Thirty four Army Guard units, with 12,234 (94.7%) of their personnel, reported for active duty in May 1968. Eight of these units, with 2,729 members, were deployed to Vietnam. An additional 4,311 Guardsmen were sent to the combat zone as fillers.

Alabama's 650th Medical Detachment (Dental) was the first Army National Guard unit to arrive in Vietnam. Indiana's Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry, which conducted reconnaissance and ambush patrols, became the first Army Guard unit since the Korean War to gain the Combat Infantry Streamer for its guidon.

*The Air Guard in Vietnam*

Air National Guard units began flying supply missions to Vietnam in 1965, and the Air Guard was mobilized twice during the Vietnam War. Eleven squadrons were called up in January 1968 in response to the seizing of the U.S. Navy ship Pueblo by North Korea, and two tactical fighter squadrons, the 166th (Ohio) and the 127th (Kansas) were sent to South Korea. In May 1968 one aeromedical airservice group and two tactical fighter groups were federalized.

Four tactical fighter squadrons--the 120th (Colorado), 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and 136th (New York)--deployed to Vietnam. And although not an Air National Guard unit, the National Guard can claim credit for a fifth squadron, the 3755th: 85% of this tactical fighter squadron's personnel were Air Guard volunteers from New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

The combat record of these five squadrons was summed up by the Air Force Commander in Vietnam, testifying before the Senate Committee:

"I had . . . five F-100 Air National Guard squadrons . . . Those were the five best F-100 squadrons in the field. The aircrews were a little older, but they were more experienced, and the maintenance people were also more experienced than the regular unit s. They had done the same work on the weapon system for years, and they had stability that a regular unit doesn't have."

*Action on the Homefront*

Many National Guard units not mobilized for Vietnam saw action of a different sort during the 1960s. Beginning with Newark, New Jersey in 1964, racially-motivated riots broke out in many large American cities. Units of the National Guard were called out to stop buming and looting in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Detroit, and a host of other cities. And as the anti-war movement gathered momentum in the late 1960s, Guardsmen were called out to maintain order during large demonstrations.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

Before I say what I am going to say, I'd like it to be known that those 97 deaths are in no way meaningless in my mind, and I give them and the Nat'l Guard their dues.

But to try and point out those losses in light of the losses of the Army is unfair to the army. I mean honestly, ninety seven losses? Regular army lost nearly twice as much as that on the BEST month in the entire war, over 5 times that amount on the worst month, and over 550 times that amount during the entire war. Nat'l guard was a GIANT step up above moving to Canada, but I'm sorry, it can't compare to enlisting in the army. And as far as his Nat'l Guard role, CigarTom correctly points out that Bush refused to take his physical (which includes a drug test), was never qualified to fly and went AWOL. So he was most likely doing drugs and quite obviously ignored his responsibilities to the Guard. So in his case, he WAS draft dodging, and using the Nat'l Guard as a cover. As far as I'm concerned, Bush (and all draft dodgers) pissed on the graves of those dead guardsmen and all 54,000 Army KIAs.


P.S. Sorry Trejo, I definately worded what I said about the Guard poorly.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

What the National Guard did during Vietnam as a whole does not reflect on what President Bush did in his service. 

What the Navy did as a whole during Vietnam does not reflect on what John Kerry did during his service. 

The swiftboat members have every right to say what their "opinion" of Mr. Kerry's service is. I would do myself injustice if I didn't follow the money trail to the funding of this particular org. It isn't pretty. No one said it had to be. It isn't the first attempt to dis-credit Kerry, nor do I suspect it will be the last. That's politics. It does seem to be working for some of you, to dis-credit Kerrys' Vietnam record. In that end, the money was well spent. Even with the knowledge Kerrys' own crew, the folks on his boat, not beside it, have said these allegations are, false. 

John McCain is the man. I am deeply saddened when Americans cannot understand his message. Bush is lucky he has his support.

I just see many more problems with Bush's National Guard record.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

While it is true that signing up for the guard was a way to get out of going to war, the swift boats weren't exactly jumping into the thick of things either. At the time John Kerry signed up for the swift boats, they were not even considered a front line type of vehicle. They tended to stay back at the fleet for transportation purposes. Not until Kerry got ready to serve did they start using them for river patrols and front line duty. 

Also, guess where Bill Clinton was in Vietnam? Sure as hell wasn't serving his country, even in the guard. I didn't hear Liberals complaining back then when he was running against Bush #1, who was a real war hero, and actually the democrats questioned Bush's record surrounding his actions when his fighter jet was shot down. F'ing hipocrites.

The ONLY reason republicans are questioning his service is because JOHN KERRY made it his central issue during the convention (and the primary also). If he didn't keep talking about how he is better equipt to be president because he served in vietnam we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would instead be talking about his horrible record in the senate which Kerry knows is horrible and completely ignores.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

I don't really like liberals or democrats. Pretty much, I don't like politicians. The next day a good one comes around that I actually think would make a good president, I will dance through the streets naked. 

And for the record, I will restate that I'm not exactly a big Kerry fan, I just think Bush is incompitent and took us into Iraq for personal reasons, which doesn't fly with me.

Btw RelaxnSmoke, I would be MUCH happier with McCain than Bush. And frankly, Dean would be much better than Kerry. Noone could ever say Dean would take shit from France or any terrorist-helping nation. :w


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> If he didn't keep talking about how he is better equipt to be president because he served in vietnam we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would instead be talking about his horrible record in the senate which Kerry knows is horrible and completely ignores.


Hey I agree with you summerkc. I actually think it is about 50/50 as far as who is talking about Kerry's Military record. He brought it on himself.

I also am wondering when Kerry will quit letting Bush define his campaign. What I see is an old debate trick, the more Bush say's Kerry is different than Bush, the more Kerry bites the bait and tries to be like Bush. Why? Because Kerry wants to be like a president and Bush is one! 

BTW, Bush raised $2.4 million the other night at his Seattle appearance, while Kerry had an audience of 40,000 to 50,000 in Portland OR.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I also am wondering when Kerry will quit letting Bush define his campaign. What I see is an old debate trick, the more Bush say's Kerry is different than Bush, the more Kerry bites the bait and tries to be like Bush. Why? Because Kerry wants to be like a president and Bush is one!


Very true, Kerry knows that actually saying what he stands for (and has stood for during his 20 years in the senete) would spell disaster for his campaign. He knows he already has his base secured and a lot of independant left leaning voters that all hate Bush, he justs need to get the other independants. That is why he has been caught in so many flip-flops (no disrespect to the LLG member flipflop ) He just changes what he says depending who is sitting in front of him. The man needs to grow some balls and stick up for what he believes in. One day is is pro-abortion next his is prolife, one day he is against gay marridge then against it, voted for the war, voted against the money for the troops, etc, etc. It is inconcievable what a spineless guy this is.

That is why a lot of people hate Bush is because they see him as stubborn and hard-headed. He just sticks to his beliefs and what he believes is best for the country, not what this or that group want. I'd rather have that kind of president anyday.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

What if? Close Shave 2004. 

Candidates Votes 
Bush 
50,996,116:--------States Won; 21-------Electoral Votes; 266 

Kerry 
50,456,169:--------States Won; 30-------Electoral Votes; 271 

December 13, 2004

President George Bush conceded the 2004 presidential election Wednesday night, effectively concluding an election that was supposed to have ended five weeks ago. 

Senator John Kerry donned the mantle of president-elect in what was, in effect, his presidential victory speech, following President George W. Bush's concession of the historic, protracted Election 2004 battle for the White House.

Bush becomes the fourth presidential candidate to receive the largest share of the popular vote while losing the electoral vote. Al Gore in 2000, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Samuel Tilden in 1876 and Andrew Jackson in 1824 also lost the presidency. Both Cleveland and Jackson went on to win the presidency four years after their electoral defeats.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> What if? Close Shave 2004.


I can garuntee there won't be as much bitching as came from the democrats after the 2000 election. I don't think Bush would let it go on until Dec.13 anyways, remember when Nixon lost? He could have contested but he said it would be too hard on the country. Too bad Gore couldn't have put the country first and had to get lawyers and the courts involved (if one person says Bush won because the supreme court handed to him I am going to go ape-sh#t).

Too this day they say Bush wasn't fairly elected, but it was Gore who was going against Florida and Federal law trying to get recounts in only a few select counties. Interesting enough, I've heard if he tried to do a legal state-wide recount he might have won, but he was to cowardly to do that, he just wanted to recount democratic stronghold.

Move-on.orq? I think they are the party that sould move on.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Senetor Haskins, D-Iowa has started calling Cheney a coward because he didn't serve in Vietnam. 

Since when did it become a requirement to serve in Vietnam and see combat to serve as an elected official? And when did the Democratic party start loving vets so much? I always thought that they hated the military and wanted to cut defence spending and called our soldiers returning home "baby killers" and "murderers".

Bush and Cheney have a much better war record in the "war on terror" where they have done a excellent job.

The only people now that are cowards are the democrats because they can't stand up for what they believe in, they just hide behind a mask of republican values even though they really stand for, and vote for killing babies, marrying gays, dividing people based on color, not supporting our troops, raising your taxes because you work hard and got lucky and made a little money, etc.

I salute the democratic party for what they have done in the past regarding civil rights, women's rights, and disabilities (even though some have gone too far), but I believe that their time has come and they have done what their party set out to do and now it is about to crash and burn. 

I think in 10 or 20 years we are going to see the sort of democratic party "break up" and the republican party split into two new parties, or the independants forming a party to go against the republicans. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Read this article in Opinion Journal and found it interesting. Here is the link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

*Summer Reruns*

We suppose it's just as well that we were on vacation when the John Kerry Vietnam controversy exploded in the blogosphere. We pretty much covered the topic back in April and are happy to have spent the past two weeks bumming around Europe rather than revisiting it. But here's a quick summary, in case you haven't been paying attention:

In a new book called "Unfit for Command," John O'Neill--who famously debated Kerry back in 1971, when the latter was a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War--alleges that Kerry committed atrocities and phonied up the injuries for which he received his Purple Hearts. Meanwhile, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--an independent "527" organization like MoveOn.org--produced an anti-Kerry TV ad featuring a series of men who declare, "I served with John Kerry," and make charges similar to O'Neill's.

Lawyers for the Kerry campaign sent a letter to TV stations urging them not to air the ad, claiming it was "false" and "libelous." The letter declares: "Not a single one of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats" (emphasis in original). But as Human Events points out, "none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat. They simply said they 'served with John Kerry'--and they did."

The lawyers' letter typifies the response of the Kerry camp to the criticism, which has been to attack the messengers. "The very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry," wrote Jim Rassmann, a Vietnam veteran who credits Kerry with saving his life, in The Wall Street Journal (and on this Web site) last week. "Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this 'dishonest and dishonorable' ad."

It's reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's complaints about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" after the Monica Lewinsky allegations surfaced in 1998. And it's probably Kerry's best bet for weathering this storm, whether the allegations against him are true, false or a combination of both. Having staked his entire campaign on his war-hero persona, the last thing he wants to do is spend the last three months before the election debating whether he really was a war hero.

This column has long argued that even if Kerry's Vietnam record is every bit as heroic as he presents it, the notion that this makes him fit to be president is ludicrous. The man spent four months in combat as a junior officer; he's not exactly Eisenhower. Besides, as a certain senator observed 12 years ago, when candidate Bill Clinton was under attack for having avoided the draft:

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

The man who said that, of course, was John Kerry. He would have better served the country--and he might have better served his own campaign--had he followed his advice this year.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

This is a thread that will go nowhere. Its a ping pong game.

Just watch these instead:

Kerry and Edwards in Love

This Land


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> This is a thread that will go nowhere. Its a ping pong game.
> 
> Just watch these instead:
> 
> ...


Funny....


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I like the comparison of this being a ping pong match. I bring up a point and wetterhorn and summerkc ditto each other to show me I'm confused, the facts aren't as they appear. What part of Kerry's military record am I missing? I've followed all instructions and read all sides, the veterans who served on Kerry's (Not with) swiftboat say he is telling the truth. They say swiftboats accusations are, false. I have been on jury duty a few times and understand enough about the law of this land to realize how the verdict would come out. 

I'm being kind when I do not bring up George W. Bush's Military record. 

This statement;

This column has long argued that even if Kerry's Vietnam record is every bit as heroic as he presents it, the notion that this makes him fit to be president is ludicrous. The man spent four months in combat as a junior officer; he's not exactly Eisenhower.

Is a slap to all who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. How does this columnist or anyone who buys into that logic approach the families of the thousands KIA within four months of arriving in Vietnam? He admits it could be true, then say's people who served only 4 months in action don't know war? Eisenhower would of dis-credited him, as Bush should do now with the swiftboat group. The high road isn't closed to either of these candidates. It isn't waffleing to take it. 

I'm truly undecided, which makes this race even more interesting. I'm definitely not torn between these two men. I think we've been stiffed politically, but through it all someone will emerge and learn what it takes to serve us, the citizens of the USofA.


----------



## KingMeatyHand (Mar 21, 2004)

> I think we've been stiffed politically, but through it all someone will emerge and learn what it takes to serve us, the citizens of the USofA.


patridiot = optimist

I'm slowly learning



Since people have been so touchy here lately...
Disclaimer: before anyone tries to flame me, please note that this is a joke. rns will get it, even if you don't. I'm not calling him, you or anyone living or dead (at this particular time) an idiot. Once again, it's just a joke. For future reference, please note the winky guy.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I am very happy to admit that Senator Kerry served his country during his stint in Vietnam. 

Senator Kerry made his service a campaign issue. I agree with the article I submitted - "This column has long argued that even if Kerry's Vietnam record is every bit as heroic as he presents it, the notion that this makes him fit to be president is ludicrous." What Senator Kerry should show us rather than his Vietnam credentials is how he is fit to be our President. 

The main issue in this election (in my most humble opinion) is the safety of this nation during the War on Terror. Which man is better equiped to do this is the crux of the issue. President Bush is taking the battle to the enemy on their ground. Senator Kerry appears that he will apease the the enemy rather than confront them. History shows (i.e. Chamberlain in WWII with Hitler; Carter with Iran in 1979-80; and Clinton when he ignored the bombings of our embasys in Africa and the World Trade Center) that this is a bad road to go down.

:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I'm being kind when I do not bring up George W. Bush's Military record.
> 
> This statement;
> 
> ...


 Bush does have a military record: he led the United States in the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. I'd say that qualifies him to be president, don't you think?

Now you have to ask yourself that if Kerry's four months in Vietnam, no matter how bravely he fought, makes him MORE qualified to lead the country. He could have been the best swift boat captain possible (and for all I know he was, I just believe 250 swift boat vets over 3 or 4) and lead his men valiently, but Bush has led millions of men during a time of national crisis, 9/11 (Iraq is debateable).

BTW, the other day Kerry was asked if he knew what he does now, would he still vote to go to war in Iraq, yes or no? He said no right? BRRRRRR he said YES, I WOULD STILL GO TO IRAQ only he would do it "differently" than Bush. What is going on here? Now he is pro Iraq war. I just don't get it, he has more different stances than a fashion model on heroin. (Made heroin thing up myself, not sure if it makes sense)


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

Bush led us into them, that is true, but that is about all I give him credit for. Other people get the credit when it comes to everythign else. Besides, he "led" us into Iraq on false pretences as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

*Franks Lied!*

Here is an article you all may find interesting...

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408170825.asp

*Franks Lied?*
_The grand ruse exposed!_

"Bush lied" is still gospel for Bush critics, even though it has become such a tattered article of faith that it is near total disintegration. The faithful want to believe that President Bush made up his charges about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities in order to "mislead" the country into war. The latest shredding of this argument comes courtesy of Gen. Tommy Franks's new book, American Soldier.

Perhaps the true believers should amplify their charge to "Franks lied," since he believed exactly the same thing about Saddam as the president. Actually, to be consistent, the charge would also have to be "important Arab leaders lied" - indeed, "most everyone with some knowledge of Saddam's regime lied," in a conspiracy so vast it included war skeptics and everyone up and down the chain of command of the American military.

Franks recounts a meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in January 2003. Abdullah told Franks, "General, from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons." Perhaps Abdullah, an opponent of Saddam, wanted to bait us into invading Iraq - and so presumably "Abdullah lied."

Franks, however, heard the same thing from skeptics about the U.S. policy of toppling Saddam. Days later Franks met with Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Mubarak said: "Gen. Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD - biologicals, actually - and he will use them on your troops."

Mubarak's warning illustrates how Saddam's alleged possession of WMD could be taken not just as a reason for action, but as a caution against it. Even though he supported it, Franks worried that the initial U.S. strike against what was thought to be the compound where Saddam and his sons were staying would precipitate a retaliatory WMD strike. "We had been receiving," Franks writes, "increasingly urgent intelligence reporting that Republican Guard units in Baghdad had moved south to the city of Al Kut - and that they had been issued mustard gas and an unknown nerve agent." Franks put U.S. forces in Kuwait on high alert.

Ah, but perhaps the high alert was part of the ruse? If so, it was an astoundingly elaborate one. Saddam's potential use of WMDs haunted Franks during the entire military operation. In their march into Iraq, U.S. Marines discovered Iraqi chemical-biological protection suits and field-syringe injectors filled with a nerve-gas antidote. The "Marines lied?" Brig. Gen. Jeff Kimmons, Franks's intelligence director, told him that one communications intercept from a Republican Guard commander "may be the authorization order to begin using WMD." "Kimmons lied?" In the middle of this blizzard of deception was Tommy Franks. "I didn't know on April 2 when our forces would be hit by chemicals or biologicals," he writes, "but I was certain it would be soon."

This fear of WMDs influenced Franks's military planning. It prompted him to emphasize speed: Intelligence said Saddam's "troops arrayed around Baghdad were holding WMDs, and we could expect them to use those weapons as we closed the noose on the capital - unless we got there before the Iraqis were ready." Franks didn't mass 500,000 troops on Saddam's border in a rerun of the first U.S. war on Saddam, partly because he feared such troop concentrations in Kuwait would be vulnerable to WMDs. If Franks distorted his military plan around a lie - as the "Bush lied" true believers must think - he shouldn't have retired with high praise, but been court-martialed.

The real liar in all this, of course, is Saddam Hussein, who didn't come clean about his weapons programs in what was likely an effort at strategic deception to cow his opponents at home and deter his enemies abroad. Any moral opprobrium about the Iraq War should attach to him, not the men who tried their best to deal responsibly with him and his regime - even if one of those men happens to be a Republican president of the United States.

by Rich Lowry


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Interesting article, everyone knows Saddam had ton of chances and 13 years to cooperate and he choose not too. This is what he gets. Good ridance.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

Yea but in the end, there are no real WMD in Iraq that have been found and he sure as hell wasn't making, or even close to making, nukes. Saddam was bad? Sure. Getting rid of Saddam was good? Yes. Going in for false, or at the very least shoddy reasons? Not a good idea, and completely unacceptable for a President.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Yea but in the end, there are no real WMD in Iraq that have been found and he sure as hell wasn't making, or even close to making, nukes. Saddam was bad? Sure. Getting rid of Saddam was good? Yes. Going in for false, or at the very least shoddy reasons? Not a good idea, and completely unacceptable for a President.


You Dems still don't get it. Let play pretend:

Lets imagine you are President of the United State, and you have Saddam, who already killed millions with chemical warheads, tried to takeover Kuwait, and tortured his own people, had 16 U.N. resolution against him, had been dodging weapon inspectors for 13 years, saying that he has no WMD and no nuclear program, and also shooting at our fighter jets in the no fly zone on a weekly basis.

On the other hand you have the CIA, and British, French, and other intelligence agencies saying that he still has WMD and maybe working on nukes, you have Saudi's leader, Egypt's leader, Kuwait's leader, and other Middle-easter leaders saying the same thing. They are all scared to death of this guy (especially all of the Kuwait citizens).

There are tons of WMD unaccounted for that we knew he had that Saddam says he distroyed but failed to document, so we don't know if they are still in the country, in another country, or really distroyed. We just had 9/11 and took over Afganistan, killing and capturing many, but not all, Al Quida forces, which the others fled to other countries, and possibly Iraq, which has ties to terrorist organizations.

You also have Saddam publicaly announcing that he will, and does, send money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel for the loss of their "heroic" sons and daughters.

Now, you are president, accountable for the lives of every U.S. citizen here and abroad, and are given this information. What do you do?

Do you say, "well, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, I'll just wait until he kills just a few Americans (which could be 2 or, like 9/11, 3000) then I'll do something about it"? Or "well, I'll give the weapons inspectors a little more time", even though they had been inspecting for 13 years to no avail because Saddam restricts every move they make?

Or do you say "Saddam comply now, or you will be removed" and when Saddam continues to give you the finger, you do it?

Hindsight is 20/20, but like Kerry even said, knowing what we know now we still should have removed Saddam.

So, are all of these still "shoddy" reasons to go to war?


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

summerkc said:


> You Dems still don't get it. Let play pretend:
> 
> Lets imagine you are President of the United State, and you have Saddam, who already killed millions with chemical warheads, tried to takeover Kuwait, and tortured his own people, had 16 U.N. resolution against him, had been dodging weapon inspectors for 13 years, saying that he has no WMD and no nuclear program, and also shooting at our fighter jets in the no fly zone on a weekly basis.
> 
> ...


Lets play pretend: :r

Love It!!

Someone buy this man a drink!


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

1f1fan said:


> Lets play pretend: :r
> 
> Love It!!
> 
> Someone buy this man a drink!


Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. :w


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

You're a young man. Why don't you enlist? It's easy to talk tough when some one else is fighting your battles for you. Just like George Bush.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> You're a young man. Why don't you enlist? It's easy to talk tough when some one else is fighting your battles for you. Just like George Bush.


Maybe I will, I'll spend four months in Iraq and then get discharged. At least then I'll be qualified to be President.  You don't have to be an ass though, I never pushed for the war, I just support the decisions of my commander in chief.

I actually would like to enlist but my wife won't let me (makes whipping sound). I would love to fly for the Air Force and I almost signed a few times but my father and wife talked me out of it. I probably will fly for the National Guard when my career get to where I want it to be, and if they want to send me to Iraq or wherever, I'll be the first on the bus. Unfortunately no one got through to my brother and he joined the Marines 2 weeks after 9/11 and did 6 months in Iraq.

He sure as hell didn't come back and call everyone he served with war criminals and rapists. He also didn't come back and bad mouth the president, he knew what he was doing was right. He saw the good that he did and the happiness of the Iraqi people that he was there. And everyday he was gone I wished I could be there fighting with him.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I can't think of anything to say. 

My dad tells me that when your young if you don't vote democrat you have no heart.....as you age and get older, if you don't vote republican, you have no brain.  

Of course he likes to shoot off one-liners like the old Stormin' Norman quip, forgetting to bring the French to war is like forgetting to bring an accordian deer hunting. 

OK, enough posturing from me today. :u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NeWcS said:


> Why would you say that "the majority of cigar smokers are Republican"?
> 
> Also how can the words "common sense" and voting for Bush be in the same post??? Im not posting to debate you just want to state my case. Look at the facts!!!
> 
> ...


Well first just look at how everyone voted and you will see very clearly that the majority are voting for Bush, not rocket science. As of right now ONLY 27% are voting for John "did you know I served in Vietnam" Kerry.

Apparently you havn't read anything that has been posted in this thread, and I am not about to repeat all that I have said during the rest my fellow Club Stogies thoughtful and logical discussion which you were not a part of since you replied to the very first post of a 170+ thread. Read the whole thing, you might learn something.

Plus, I don't want to discuss anything with anyone who says that the President of the United States of America should be assassinated. That is just unacceptable and uncalled for. If you want to converse on a certain subject relating to the election I would be happy to.


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Plus, I don't want to discuss anything with anyone who says that the President of the United States of America should be assassinated. That is just unacceptable and uncalled for.


um, I think he just called for "assanation".


----------



## kamikaiguy (Feb 18, 2004)

Wow NeWcs

Do you realize that saying the President should be assinated on this board is a federal offense. If the FBI were monitoring this board you would be getting a visit real soon. Every threat of assination is investigated and wether or not it is a hoax it is usually punished. Something little like you said would probably go uninvestigated and chalked up as nothing.

I don't understand you libs.... You preach peace and we should not go to war and not be agressive. But you want assination???? Do you have any idea how hipocritical that is......


----------



## NeWcS (Aug 18, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Well first just look at how everyone voted and you will see very clearly that the majority are voting for Bush, not rocket science. As of right now ONLY 27% are voting for John "did you know I served in Vietnam" Kerry..


While a great site, I don't think it's safe to say that 'the majority of cigar smokers' are on this msg board so thats why I was asking how you could say that.

Anyways like I said I did'nt post to get into a debate with ya. Just wanted to throw in my 2-cents.

Have a nice day.

-Jay


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

LeafHog said:


> um, I think he just called for "assanation".


I think that is what Kerry would do if he were elected, he would "ass a nation", namely, ours.


----------



## NeWcS (Aug 18, 2004)

kamikaiguy said:


> Wow NeWcs
> 
> Do you realize that saying the President should be assinated on this board is a federal offense. ......


I didn't say I was going to! My point is that he needs to go away!!!



kamikaiguy said:


> I don't understand you libs.... You preach peace and we should not go to war and not be agressive. But you want assination???? Do you have any idea how hipocritical that is......


I'd have to say Im not a LIB! I just don't think W is good for this country. The US is in bad shape!

Im pretty new here and did NOT post to try to offend anyone or make enemys. I really hate threads like this!!!! They have no place in a cigar forum. I can never stay away from posts like this and it gets me In trouble!!

Anyways, Long ashes to all no matter what party you roll w/!
-Jay


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NeWcS said:


> While a great site, I don't think it's safe to say that 'the majority of cigar smokers' are on this msg board so thats why I was asking how you could say that.
> 
> Anyways like I said I did'nt post to get into a debate with ya. Just wanted to throw in my 2-cents.
> 
> ...


Maybe not, but polling doesn't ask everyone in the country who they are going to vote for. They take a sample of the population, while Club stogie is not a scientific sampling, I would offer a guess that it would offer a fair representation of cigar smokers. They say a poll is accurate for the whole population if as little as 380 people are randomly picked (if I remember correctly). So far we have had about 120 vote, but many many more members.

It is fair to say that the majority of cigar smokers are male that are around 30-35 years old (which you are if I am not mistaken). Sure there are rare occurences, there are a few women here, a few guys older than 70 and a few guys younger than 21. If you would like more info about people ages around here search for my "how old is everyone" poll.

There is nothing wrong with debating (I love a good debate), as long as you don't attack your debator, back up your statements with facts, and don't say the president should be assassinated. I, for one, am a master-debater. 
hehe  always wanted to use that line.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NeWcS said:


> The US is in bad shape!


I could definetely debate you on this. 

I would say the country was in its worst shape starting in December of 2000 when the tech bubble burst and the recession officially started (yep, check the Federal Reserve for this one, ole Slick Willy let this happen), and the totally went out of control after 9/11 as you can imagine it should.

Considering all that Bush has had to go through, and how the US looks today (while not perfect), I'd say he has done a great job.


----------



## NeWcS (Aug 18, 2004)

Is that pic in your avator you? If so has anyone ever told you, you look like Jay Moore? 

Thanks for being a good sport and not taking to heart what I was saying.

Long ashes and tight lines

-Jay


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NeWcS said:


> Is that pic in your avator you? If so has anyone ever told you, you look like Jay Moore?
> 
> Thanks for being a good sport and not taking to heart what I was saying.
> 
> ...


Yeah, thats me.

You would not believe all of the celeberties people have told me I look like. Actually I think you are the first that said Jay Moore, I'll add it to my list.

Ive gotten Gary Sinese, Quinton Tarentino, Sean Penn, and a few others. I think younger Sean Penn is pretty close especially when I grow my hair a little longer. You can't really tell in that picture.

From the ladies I get Brad Pitt, George Clooney, just kidding.... 

/thread jack over


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Thought this was a good article and thought you all might enjoy it!
http://billoreilly.com/currentarticle?JSESSIONID=BlC3h1xAYt8J2M26FtBqM1TOpTLh3NJbVdCoFoXzeQtyUGqwL7Qx!-1860179057

*With Liberty and Slander for All * 
_By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com_
Thursday, Aug 19, 2004

With just about ten weeks until the Presidential vote, smear merchants on both sides continue to run wild. The internet is one big Defamation.com; John Kerry is a traitor, George W. Bush is a deserter. And there's big money behind the purveyors of this vile brew.

But this is nothing new for America. What's changed is the machinery that delivers the slander. All throughout our history character assassins have surfaced every four years to attack anyone daring enough to run for the highest office in the land. The freedom of screech extends all the way back to 1796.

In that election, campaign supporters of John Adams really went after his opponent Thomas Jefferson, calling him, among other things, an atheist, anarchist, demagogue, coward, trickster and a mountebank.

A mountebank is a guy who sells phony medicine, in case you're like me and didn't know.

Jefferson's crowd immediately struck back by labeling Adams: egotistical, erratic, eccentric and jealous-natured.

Historian Paul Boller describes all this in his lively book "Campaigns" (Oxford Press). Boller chronicles each Presidential contest, and it's clear that we have learned little over the years. The mud stays eerily similar throughout the ages.

In 1828, for example, backers of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were totally out of control. Jackson won the vote despite being accused of adultery, gambling, cock fighting, bigamy, slave trading, drunkenness, theft, lying, and murder. I guess the voters figured anyone with that much energy deserved the top job.

But Jackson's people didn't silently stand by. No way. They hammered Adams hard, accusing him of having premarital relations with his wife and traveling on a Sunday. It doesn't get lower than that.

The slime machine behind James Polk went to work in 1844, announcing that his opponent, Henry Clay, had systemically violated every one of The Ten Commandments.

Clay's mudslingers immediately replied calling Polk "unimaginative." Polk won the election carrying much of the non-creative vote.

U.S. Grant was, perhaps, the most vilified Presidential candidate in history. Running against Horace Greeley in 1872, Grant was called a crook, an ignoramus, a drunk, a swindler, and an "utterly depraved horse jockey."

It's entirely possible that last attack caused much sympathy for Grant who carried 31 of 37 states. A depraved horse jockey indeed!

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt was actually shot in the chest while campaigning in Milwaukee. He got up, finished his speech, and then went to the hospital. Woodrow Wilson won the election, but let's give the Rough Rider some credit here.

During the campaign of 1928, hysteria reigned because Al Smith was a Roman Catholic. Some supporters of his opponent Herbert Hoover got this message out: If elected, Smith would annul all Protestant marriages and extend the newly completed Holland Tunnel in New York City all the way to Rome! Talk about a big dig.

Compared to the above, calling Bill Clinton a "pot smoking, draft dodger," or labeling John Kerry a "flip-flopper" doesn't even rate. President Bush's intelligence is being challenged but nowhere have I seen him accused of fathering an out-of-wedlock child as was Grover Cleveland (who actually did). So while we have been assaulted by Swift Boats and taunted by the likes of Michael Moore, the slime peddlers are not nearly as creative as they used to be.

I just pray Bush and Kerry don't travel on Sunday.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

That was pretty funny. You would have thought that back then it was more civilized, not less.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Latest flip-flop from Kerry:

After Bush announced a reduction in troops in Europe and South Korea, Kerry said that he strongly disagrees with the unilateral withdrawl of tropps from Germany and specificaly South Korea where North Korea's threat of a nuclear weapons program is growing.

Ok, good point Mr. Kerry, but why did you say this 3 weeks ago: "I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops [in Iraq], not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination."

Let me say it again: What an ass.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Isn't this censorship?

*Unfit for bookstores*
_The Kerry campaign calls on a conservative publisher to withdraw book after the Washington Post torpedoes the veracity of a Swift boat veteran._
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Aug. 19, 2004 |

The Kerry campaign has told Salon that the publisher of "Unfit for Command," the book that is at the center of the attack on Kerry's military record by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores. "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton. "If I were them, I'd be ducking under my desk wondering what to do. This is a serious problem."

Even some uncomfortable Republicans might breathe a sigh a relief if "Unfit for Command" were to vanish from bookstores: "I don't think the Swift Boat Veterans are helping the Republican cause," Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., remarked on CNN Thursday.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Isn't this censorship?
> 
> *Unfit for bookstores*
> _The Kerry campaign calls on a conservative publisher to withdraw book after the Washington Post torpedoes the veracity of a Swift boat veteran._
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Yes it is censorship, but it is ok because it isn't a book about how Bush is the anti-christ, hitler, or imposing martial law in America. All of those books have nothing wrong with them. (The last time I was at the book store there was at least 20-25 of them)

Hipocrites. They make me sick.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Here are a few lines from Alexander Solzhenitsyn at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978. I think they speak to Senator Kerry's anti-war activities after his service in Vietnam. (Emphasis is mine.)

"However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. *But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?* The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?"


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

This just hot off the presses, Kerry is filing a complaint with the FEC accusing the Bush campaign of illegal cooperation with Swift Boat Vet for Truth. 

Looks like the Democrats are all ready starting with the lawyers, which is to be expected having both Kerry and Edwards be lawyers. This is going to be a loooong election season.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Attacking a mans military record is pretty serious business.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Attacking a mans military record is pretty serious business.


I agree, attacking a man's military record is serious business. But if Senator Kerry lied about his record, that is also serious business. Below is a statement from one of the sailors who were there the day John Kerry pulled Rassmann out of the river.

_Statement By Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Member Larry Thurlow _

"I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.

"To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates -- there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.

"I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.

"It was not until I had left the Navy -- approximately three months after I left the service -- that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.

"I believed then as I believe now that I received my Bronze Star for my efforts to rescue the injured crewmen from swift boat number three and to conduct damage control to prevent that boat from sinking. My boat and several other swift boats went to the aid of our fellow swift boat sailors whose craft was adrift and taking on water. We provided immediate rescue and damage control to prevent boat three from sinking and to offer immediate protection and comfort to the injured crew.

"After the mine exploded, leaving swift boat three dead in the water, John Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river, fled the scene. US Army Special Forces officer Jim Rassmann, who was on Kerry's boat at the time, fell off the boat and into the water. Kerry's boat returned several minutes later -- under no hail of enemy gunfire -- to retrieve Rassmann from the river only seconds before another boat was going to pick him up.

"Kerry campaign spokespersons have conflicting accounts of this incident -- the latest one being that Kerry's boat did leave but only briefly and returned under withering enemy fire to rescue Mr. Rassmann. However, none of the other boats on the river that day reported enemy fire nor was anyone wounded by small arms action. The only damage on that day was done to boat three -- a result of the underwater mine. None of the other swift boats received damage from enemy gunfire.

"And in a new development, Kerry campaign officials are now finally acknowledging that while Kerry's boat left the scene, none of the other boats on the river ever left the damaged swift boat. This is a direct contradiction to previous accounts made by Jim Rassmann in the Oregonian newspaper and a direct contradiction to the "No Man Left Behind" theme during the Democratic National Convention.

"These ever changing accounts of the Bay Hap River incident by Kerry campaign officials leave me asking one question. If no one ever left the scene of the Bay Hap River incident, how could anyone be left behind?"


----------



## smokemifyagotem (Mar 12, 2003)

You know what really gets to me?.. Its the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue. Kerry is all on the defensive saying how Bush should tell these swiftboat veterans to stop the attacks saying - "The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it."
I DONT SEE KERRY TELLING MICHAEL MOORE TO STOP SHOWING HIS LIE FILLED MOVIE! As a matter of fact, wasn't Moore sitting in the "good seats" at the Democratic Convention!...

Also, all you read and hear in the press is how this swiftboat group is " funded in part by a top GOP donor in Texas", therfore the group must be linked to Bush and Bush should do something to stop them. In reality there is a guy in TX who gave a few hundred thousand.....and the dems make such a big stink over this one guy...

Wait a minute.......Isn't there a guy called George Soros who gave a few MILLION to a group called MOVEON.ORG?? A group that has blatently run ads that clearly COMPARE BUSH TO ADOLPH HITLER!! WHY HASN'T KERRY TOLD MOVEON.ORG TO LAY OFF BUSH?!!!! 

THE HYPOCRISY IS AMAZING!! When I hear Kerry say things like "Bush should have the courage to tell them to stop", I swear I want to ask him the above question and then strangle that two-faced, smug, hypocritical, lying, elite, SOB!!!!!! :sb


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I see no reason to get emotional over either one of these guys, but it's your right and choice to do that.

The legacy of Vietnam is right back in the forefront. It split the nation in the 60's and now it's creating a divide in the 21st century. These are wounds that this nation has worked tirelessly to heal. To open these wounds up is a mistake that will backfire. For both candidates.

The Chicago Tribune, Washington Post and New York Times all have various flow charts and eyewitness accounts of both candidates military service. They even have charts and documentation on various 527 groups money flow. Under the freedom of information act you can view both mens military records, side by side. I am not going to be influenced by anything other than a debate between both men in a nuetral setting.

But above all, I won't let these silver spoon boys buy my vote. My family has been working their a$$ off for generations, I cannot relate to privelage. Nor do I particulary care to.

With the proclaimed royal lineage of President George Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, shouldn't we have a coronation in January 2005 rather than an inauguration?


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

smokemifyagotem said:


> You know what really gets to me?.. Its the hypocrisy of the democrats on this issue. Kerry is all on the defensive saying how Bush should tell these swiftboat veterans to stop the attacks saying - "The president needs to stand up and stop that. The president needs to have the courage to talk about it."
> I DONT SEE KERRY TELLING MICHAEL MOORE TO STOP SHOWING HIS LIE FILLED MOVIE! As a matter of fact, wasn't Moore sitting in the "good seats" at the Democratic Convention!...
> 
> Also, all you read and hear in the press is how this swiftboat group is " funded in part by a top GOP donor in Texas", therfore the group must be linked to Bush and Bush should do something to stop them. In reality there is a guy in TX who gave a few hundred thousand.....and the dems make such a big stink over this one guy...
> ...


I feel your pain, man. The most important thing to remember though is not sinking to their level and acting like some raving idiot. Once we get to that level we are no different than them (even though we are still right  )


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

I read through a portion of this (I have been away from CS for awhile, tisk tisk). I would just like to throw in my .02 about the war in Iraq.

1) WMD, if Saddam had them, kick his ass, if not, proceed to 2

2) For many years, the middle east has been a problem because of the hatred between the Jews and Arabs. After WWII, we gave land to the Jews, a big no-no as far as the Arabs are concerned. This is never mentioned in mainstream media because of the large Jewish influence on it and our country. This is not said to be anti-semitic, merely an observation. They dont like the Jews, we helped the Jews, they dont like us. We also used Israel and therefore helped them during the cold war. Right or wrong, its too late to change the policies weve made in the past. "Peace in the middle east" sounds great, but it is also a necessity to us, because of our interests in the middle east with regards to oil. Yes oil pollutes, yes we have oil reserves of our own, but its damn nice to be friendly with those who already have the reserves tapped for our use. We need Iraq, as an ally, to bridge the differences between Arab and Jew. Peace conferences between two radical groups do nothing, we need commen sense and logic, which only some from capitalism and conservatism. If you wish to argue this point, I would gladly take you up on it. While we cannot fully understand human nature because of the uncertainty that comes with observing such a phenomenon, the poliical philosophies derived or similar to those of Locke and Rand are quite simply, the closest to reality.

3) We CANNOT police the world. Our options are a) respond to terrorism, as Kerry wants, or b) crush terrorists before they can strike, as Bush wants. This statement is easily derived from both their plans for the war on terror and their sound bites....research if you dont believe. Unfortunately, this is not us against Germany or Russia. We cannot take Joe Smith, the 6'4" blonde kid from Boston and teach him to overcome his accent and teach him German/Russian. We need Arabs. Arabs that we can trust, not because we think that they want to help us, but because their lives, their families lives, and their way of life depends on it, much like ours does. How do we do this you ask? Simple...free Iraq and create a free society much like ours. The war on Iraq is a war on terror, not some sceme to avenge daddy. There were many groups, foreign and abroad, that wanted to kill GB I, Iraq wasnt picked out of a hat. If we secure Iraq, we have taken a huge step towards securing our nation against terrorism. 

4.) We all know the feel good crap about human rights, and saving lives. This is WWII revisited, not Vietnam. We stopped a rogue dictator whose intentions were to kill off the undesired portion of his population and take over weaker nations. Sound familiar?/

5.) OIL. Was oil the reason for this war? If you think so, then the reason for WWII was most certainly the coal deposits in western Germany. Oil is, however, a nice benefit of this war. Will we march in there and claim it as our own? Of course not. Will we create a strong trade alliance with Iraq pending a smooth transition? Damn right. Oil plays a vital role in the rebuilding of Iraq, as it is the country's chief source of wealth. Wealth=power=ability to control terrorists. Iraqi capitalists are drooling over the chance to create their own wealth with privatized oil. These people sure as hell wont want terrorists setting their rigs on fire. Whether the use their power in government or hire their own headhunters, they will make damn sure that terrorists that threaten them are hanging from a lamppost. Furthermore, oil is the base of our economy. LIke it or not, thats how it is. If suddenly a foreign dictator threatened to shut down the laborers unions throughout the US, you can bet damn well we would be at war. Enough said.

6.) The separation of the Arabs. We must dissolve the Arab belief that it is Arab against the world. We are all humans, we all have the common goal of happiness and prosperity. That damn simple. To think otherwise is no less racist than Black Entertainment Television or the KKK. 


This war in Iraq was perhaps the most justified in our nation's histroy. WWII had no major bearing on our trade. Germany took out some ships aiding their enemy. If we had stopped trade it would not even compare with the effects of terrorism or the the loss of money and oil as the zealot ideals spread through the Arab world. Remember, these people control the world, and until we can be 100% sure they are on our side, we must keep the in check using our force. Iraq is also a stronghold which we must secure in our war agaist terrorism. Is it the center of all terrorism and the home of terrosists? Nope, look at Tim McVeigh and George Sorros, they live(d) right here in the USA...but it is a great starting point. Aside from our interests, we are saving the lives of Iraqis. We have ended Saddam's torture, we have ended the torture of Iraqi Olymipians who are not up to snuff, and we have ended genocide. If that is not enough of a reason for you to go to war, kindly return to the days of the Southern Democrats who supported slavery. 



Now to throw in a few things on Kerry aside from his lies regarding Vietnam, the war in Iraq, etc


-If elected, Kerry will sign the UN treaty on gun policy. With a Democratic house and senate, this will the ratified and become law. I have no guns, yet this scares the crap out of me. 

-13 Democrats in Congress requested UN supervision of our upcoming election. China, Russia, etc would have power over our election

-Kerry's yet to be determined stance on everything

-etc, etc, etc

I strongly urge those who are anti-Bush to take an educated and honest look at the situation. I too, am anti-Bush, more specifically, I am anti-politican. I think America needs an honest look in the mirror and needs to get back to its original intentions, the land of the free, where the strong and willing to work survive, and where others do not. We were created to provide opportunity, not govenment pension plans and free healthcare. 

Ill go and rest my fingers now. :u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

flipflop said:


> *Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing*
> by Tim Kane, Brett Schaefer, and Alison Fraser
> April 1, 2004
> 
> ...


You should mention the in-sourcing of jobs. (no one else does). Subaru in Indiana, Nissan In AL, Toyota in KY, DB & BMW in the Carolinas. All "low wage" UAW jobs.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Attacking a mans military record is pretty serious business.


You know, I thought about your point for a long while. It then occurred to me that this is why the Swift Vet guys are so upset. Senator Kerry disparaged their military record by saying they all committed atrocitites and that this was a regular feature of the war in Vietnam.

The Swift Vets have every right to challenge Senator Kerry's description of their actions and his account of what occurred. And Senator Kerry has the right to defend his description of the events.

I however, concur with the over 200 men who were there and say they served honorably and that Senator Kerry's actions after his service were depolorable.

It also seems like the Democrats want it both ways. President Bush's military record is fair game, but Senator Kerry's isn't. DNC Chairman was quoted in the New York Times on February 1, 2004, "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard," Mr. McAuliffe said in an interview on the ABC News program "This Week." "George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up. And there's John Kerry on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving the lives of American soldiers. So, as John Kerry says, `Bring it on!' "

Well, now the Swift Vets are bringing it and the DNC wants nothing to do with it. What is with that?

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Senetor Haskins, D-Iowa has started calling Cheney a coward because he didn't serve in Vietnam.
> 
> Since when did it become a requirement to serve in Vietnam and see combat to serve as an elected official? And when did the Democratic party start loving vets so much? I always thought that they hated the military and wanted to cut defence spending and called our soldiers returning home "baby killers" and "murderers".
> 
> ...


Correction: Its Senator Tom "Ol Fuzzy Head" HARKIN who called Cheney a coward, ah, for having taken the very same deferment as the Heroic Sen. John Edwards. Isn't that statement a slap at Bill Clinton. too? :r

Remeber: If Kerry had prevailed over Reagan, the Soviet Union would still be in business, the Berln Wall would still remain, the Cold War would still be a fact of life.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Yea but in the end, there are no real WMD in Iraq that have been found and he sure as hell wasn't making, or even close to making, nukes. Saddam was bad? Sure. Getting rid of Saddam was good? Yes. Going in for false, or at the very least shoddy reasons? Not a good idea, and completely unacceptable for a President.


What shoddy reasons? Several major intelligence agencies said he had WMD. They still stand behind those assessments: Russia, GB and US. We know he had them as he used them. Some were destroyed after the Gulf War. We have found terrorist booby traps comprised of serin gas artillery shells, twice. Would Al-Quaida love to have that tech?

Page 63, 9/11 report, paraphrased: Iraq sent a delegation to Osama to invite him to reside in Iraq. They were competing against Iran and Afghanistan for his presence. OBL chose the Taliban. I guess there might be a connection there. It is fantasy to believe that Al-Quaida was in Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and Florida and Buffalo, NY, but no where in Iraq.

The potentials were there. If Hitler could have been removed before 1939, would you do it? On what basis? Preemption requires a reliable belief and bravery. Cowards, like Chamberlain, believe these people can be convinced by mere talking to them ("dialog"). Rubbish.

LBJ let thousands of boys die trying to negotiate (buy off) Ho rather than fight to victory. Listen, the Dems are singing the same tune, today. Their candidate is but a reed blowing in the wind.


----------



## smokemifyagotem (Mar 12, 2003)

summerkc said:


> I feel your pain, man. The most important thing to remember though is not sinking to their level and acting like some raving idiot. Once we get to that level we are no different than them (even though we are still right  )


I agree w/ you. I just had to release my frustration just once....Ahhh, much better now..


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

summerkc said:


> Maybe I will, I'll spend four months in Iraq and then get discharged. At least then I'll be qualified to be President.  You don't have to be an ass though, I never pushed for the war, I just support the decisions of my commander in chief.
> 
> I actually would like to enlist but my wife won't let me (makes whipping sound). I would love to fly for the Air Force and I almost signed a few times but my father and wife talked me out of it. I probably will fly for the National Guard when my career get to where I want it to be, and if they want to send me to Iraq or wherever, I'll be the first on the bus. Unfortunately no one got through to my brother and he joined the Marines 2 weeks after 9/11 and did 6 months in Iraq.
> 
> He sure as hell didn't come back and call everyone he served with war criminals and rapists. He also didn't come back and bad mouth the president, he knew what he was doing was right. He saw the good that he did and the happiness of the Iraqi people that he was there. And everyday he was gone I wished I could be there fighting with him.


So to summarize your response, "maybe I will, I can't, I wish I could."

That's the kind of response I would expect from you.

By the way, John Kerry volunteered and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He was sent home early on his second one. Your reference to four months is factually incorrect.

Don't feel bad about talking tough yet wimping out when it comes to actually doing anything. Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did exactly the same thing. Now Colin Powell on the other hand, who actually served in a war, thought we did not approach the Iraq war properly, like John Kerry who also actually served. It's funny how those who actually serve are more thoughtful about rushing into a war and those who don't, like yourself, are all gung ho with the rhetoric.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> By the way, John Kerry volunteered and served two tours of duty in Vietnam. He was sent home early on his second one. Your reference to four months is factually incorrect.


No, he was there for four months, stop getting your facts from Moveon.org and George Soros. It was cut short because he "recieved" 3 purple hearts.

Purple heart #1: recieved when on a training exercise Kerry was shooting and some recocheting scrapnel hit him in the arm. Doctor took it out with tweezers and applied a band-aid. Hours spent in hospital: <1. Shots fired by the enemy: 0 (the doctor and commanding officer denied him a purple heart, he had to call his daddy's friends higher up to get it)

Purple heart #2: recieved when Kerry for fun tossed a grenade into a boat containing rice for no apparent reason. Rice got him in the butt and had to be removed with tweezers. Hours spent in hospital: Maybe 1 or 2. Shots fired by the enemy: 0

Purple heart #3: recieved when Kerry hit his arm on his swiftboat bulkhead and recieved a bruise when a mine hit a fellow swiftboat. Hours spent in hospital: <1. Shot fired by the enemy: 1 (the mine) This is where he also recieved his bronze star I believe for pulling one of the guys on his boat fell in the river (which is thought to have happend because Kerry fled when the mine went off and didn't stay and help the guys drowning on the sunken boat.)

Then he went home.

I also don't understand how you can say that commanding a 50 ft. boat and serving for four months is the equivalent or better than leading the country during 9/11, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, and a recession that started Nov. of 2000 as all of your "coward republicans" did.

And then you attack me as if I am not allowed to discuss anything because I've never served in the military. Well, I've never murdered a person so I can't discuss putting other murderers in jail if I was on a jury or a judge? Or I can't discuss sports because I've never been on a pro sports team? Good argument.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> Don't feel bad about talking tough yet wimping out when it comes to actually doing anything. Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did exactly the same thing. Now Colin Powell on the other hand, who actually served in a war, thought we did not approach the Iraq war properly, like John Kerry who also actually served. It's funny how those who actually serve are more thoughtful about rushing into a war and those who don't, like yourself, are all gung ho with the rhetoric.


Extraordinarily specious argument - what on earth does summerkc's military experience or lack thereof have anything to do with his right to comment on whether Senator Kerry is the right man for President?

Further, I don't think you should get on a BOTL like that. Summerkc has stated his opinion clearly, and anyone is free to disagree with it, but to attack him on his lack of military experience is wrong.

As for those who have not been in a war rushing into war, well I strongly disagree. Even Senator Kerry agrees knowing what we know now about WMDs, he still would have voted for the authority to go to war being given to the President. Remember, the Senate and House voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war. Only the Congress can grant such authority per the Constitution.

The article below sheds some interesting light on the issue...

*Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War?
No.*
_By William Saletan_
Posted Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004, at 3:36 PM PT

_Why won't he just tell us? _

Last Friday, President Bush challenged Sen. John Kerry: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq." On Monday, pressed by a reporter to answer Bush, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Bush argues that this is yet another Kerry flip-flop and that Kerry now endorses Bush's war. At a campaign rally on Tuesday, Bush asserted, "My opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpile of weapons we believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Does Kerry now agree with Bush's decision? Would Kerry have gone into Iraq? Would he have voted to give Bush the authorization had Kerry known what he now knows about the absence of WMD and about how Bush would use the authorization?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> I read through a portion of this (I have been away from CS for awhile, tisk tisk). I would just like to throw in my .02 about the war in Iraq.
> 
> 1) WMD, if Saddam had them, kick his ass, if not, proceed to 2
> 
> ...


Well said!!!!!

:u


----------



## cwaddell_1 (Feb 27, 2004)

Summerkc,
Isn't it amazing how important military service has become to the Dems in the past few months. During the '90s it was a nonissue.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Gotta love Senator Edwards' reply to President Bush's call to end the ads! What is he _thinking?_ I have highlighted it in the story below.

*Kerry, Bush in Political Firefight * 
_Monday, August 23, 2004_

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that a veterans' group should stop airing television ads criticizing John Kerry's war record.

Bush said ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 group named after its status in the tax code, should be pulled. The call from Bush could open him up to charges that the Bush-Cheney campaign is coordinating with an unregulated political organization.

"That means that ad and every other ad. I don't believe we ought to have 527s. I think they're bad for the system," Bush said on Monday in Crawford, Texas. "I frankly thought we'd gotten rid of it when I signed McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform.

Bush said that he thought Kerry "served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record," but it remains undecided whether that will extinguish the political firefight that has built over Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Consider the latest:

- Former Sen. Bob Dole (search) - the Republicans' 1996 presidential nominee - suggested Sunday that Kerry apologize for past testimony before Congress about alleged atrocities during the Vietnam War. He joined critics of the Democratic presidential candidate who say he received an early exit from combat for "superficial wounds."

*- On Monday, Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said Bush should call for the group to remove the ad. He called Bush's decision to do so a "test of character" for the president. After Bush's comments, Edwards expressed disappointment.

"The moment of truth came and went, and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," he said. *

- Also on Monday, Democrats arranged for reporters a conference call with Navy swift boat officers Rich McCann, Jim Russell and Rich Baker, who said Kerry acted honorably and bravely. In a separate news conference in Harrisburg, Pa., crewmate Del Sandusky said he personally witnessed the battle action for which Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and two of his three Purple Hearts.

"He deserved every one of his medals," Sandusky, a retired computer repairman who drove Kerry's boat for nearly three months.

- On Sunday, the Kerry campaign released a new ad accusing the president of backing Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search), the group which has released a series of spots calling into question Kerry's heroism. In the Kerry ad, the narrator claims that families are losing jobs and health care while "George Bush's campaign supports a front group attacking John Kerry's military record." The ad calls the attacks "smears" and "lies."

- In response to the Kerry ad, the Bush campaign sent a letter to television station managers Monday "to set the record straight." The Bush campaign letter "flatly rejects this baseless allegation of illegal coordination between Bush-Cheney '04 and a group called Swiftboat Veterans for Truth."

Kerry senior adviser Michael Meehan told FOX News that Bush didn't do what Kerry implored because he didn't denounce the Swift boat ads specifically, but called for an end to all 527 ads.

The uproar over Kerry's service has dominated much of the political news since the Democratic senator from Massachusetts accepted his party's presidential nomination with a speech that centered on his biography and his military service.

Kerry spent four months in Vietnam leading a "swift boat" crew but was sent home after accumulating his third Purple Heart for injuries he received.

"Swift boat" was the common term in Vietnam for the small U.S. Navy patrol boat officially known as a Patrol Craft Fast (search), or PCF.

The political attacks on Kerry have been twofold. First, critics say Kerry embellished his Vietnam record. Second, they say Kerry disrespected his fellow veterans when he returned home and testified before Congress about what he described as "atrocities" being committed by Americans in combat.

Kerry defender and National Director of Veterans for Kerry (search) John Hurley called the Swift Boat Vets' ads "dishonest and dishonorable."

"This is a Republican smear campaign. ... The United States Navy awarded John Kerry a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Every single man who served under his command, when he won those awards, supports John Kerry," Hurley told FOX News Sunday, adding that all the members of the Swift Boat group except for one never met Kerry in Vietnam.

That one sailor, Van Odell, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Kerry was not under enemy fire, as the "after-action report" that earned him his Bronze Star states.

"I do not have a document that says that," Odell admitted, adding that no one else at the scene of the fight thought it was medal-worthy. "I was up at the highest point. I could see all around. I could see what was going on. I fired a few hundred rounds when the mine first went off. And after that we quit firing because - and then we spent an hour in the kill zone, and nobody was shot or wounded.

"None of us knew that he even got the Bronze Star. None of us knew that any of this was going on. We didn't know until after he left about the Purple Heart. And I didn't know about his Bronze Star until about three months ago that they got for this action," he told FOX News Sunday.

Odell also rejected charges that the organization he represents is funded by people who have worked in conjunction with the Republican Party.

"Our message is our message, and no one tells us what to say," Odell said.

Federal law prohibits any direct involvement between private organizations, known as 527s, and anyone connected to a presidential campaign. On Sunday, the Bush campaign stated that it had released from volunteer duty a campaign worker who served in Vietnam and appears in one of the Swift Boat ads. The campaign said Col.Ken Cordier (search) failed to disclose his involvement with the group.

Democrats complain that the Republican Party's involvement goes much deeper than that.

The swift boat group clearly "is coordinated with the Bush Cheney campaign," said Angelo Genova, attorney for the Democratic Party. There is "direct evidence of overlapping consultants, overlapping fund-raisers. ... Here we have Texas supporters of the president involved. Karl Rove himself has been implicated."

Jan Baran, former general counsel for the Republican National Committee, dismissed these charges. "All of the factual allegations regarding overlap under FEC regulations are basically superficial."

All the back-and-forth is disappointing Sen. Joe Lieberman (search), D-Conn., the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate. He told FOX News Sunday that Kerry's war record has consumed all the attention while more important issues in the presidential campaign are being ignored.

"What really infuriates me and amazes me is that we're spending this much time and energy debating what happened 35 years ago instead of talking more about the war on terrorism we're in today, about our health care, education, environment, economic problems, and what George Bush and John Kerry are going to do for the next four years. That's what we ought to be debating."

_Fox News' Steve Centanni and Sharon Kehnemui contributed to this report_


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Extraordinarily specious argument - what on earth does summerkc's military experience or lack thereof have anything to do with his right to comment on whether Senator Kerry is the right man for President?
> 
> Further, I don't think you should get on a BOTL like that. Summerkc has stated his opinion clearly, and anyone is free to disagree with it, but to attack him on his lack of military experience is wrong.


THank you for defending my right to voice my opinions and trying to uphold the 1st admendment, it really has taken a beating lately, especially from the Kerry campaign who has called on television stations to stop the swift boat ads, called on the publisher of "Unfit for Command" to recall the book, and called for bookstores to remove it from the shelves or put it in the fiction section. Might as well have a good ole fashioned book burning. And they complained about the Patriot Act? You could cut the hypocrisy around the Democrats with a knife its so thick.

Did you hear the Bush campaign call on Kerry and Michael Moore to stop Farenheit 9/11, or stop commercials from Moveon.org? No.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Wetterhorn said:


> John Kerry says, `Bring it on!' "
> Well, now the Swift Vets are bringing it and the DNC wants nothing to do with it. What is with that?:u


Just saw an interesting headline, Bush says attacks should stop.

The swiftboats have already been found to be lying about what, who, where, when and how John Kerry served in Vietnam. It has been documented and verified, put on display in the national media....flowcharts, official govt. records, my god man, I've been reading about it the past week. They have wasted my time. The 200 men who John Kerry supposedly said bring it on to (I think he meant George Bush) are going to change their focus rather quickly from the previous stance (a load) to now what he did after the war. I guess if you believed them before, you'll stick with them now. I'm listening to Bush/Kerry only.

I'll stand by what I say, Attacking a mans military record is pretty serious business.

It is a two way street and it could haunt Kerry, we'll see eh.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Just saw an interesting headline, Bush says attacks should stop.
> 
> The swiftboats have already been found to be lying about what, who, where, when and how John Kerry served in Vietnam. It has been documented and verified, put on display in the national media....flowcharts, official govt. records, my god man, I've been reading about it the past week.


The facts in the document that was brought forth by the Washington Post that supposedly showed that there was enemy fire during the time when swiftboat 3 was hit by a mine was actually taken from John Kerry's original report of what happend that day. So far only the guy that Kerry snagged out of the river is the only one there that day that says there was any enemy fire and he wasn't really in the best position to judge and I understand while he is sticking with Kerry who saved his life.

But I agree with you this Vietnam crap is really starting to get on my nerves, and I can't wait to start talking about Kerry's senate record which is just about as damning as what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (or not) is saying. Remember people, #1 most liberal senator, with #5 as vice-president.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

Hey it would be kind of cool to change this thread to the "minefield" or should that be mindfield....oh crap let's just call it seinfeld.

I do agree to disagree, but if you ever met me in person, politics is the last thing I really want to talk about, honest. I just have been enjoying the discourse, a nice exchange and truly apoligize if I've offended anyones political stance, not my intent. rns


Now lets talk religion. :fu


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

Honestly, for me, the funniest thing about this tread is the fact that PDS hasn't said a single thing since he started it :r That's one smart admin


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> Honestly, for me, the funniest thing about this tread is the fact that PDS hasn't said a single thing since he started it :r That's one smart admin


Personally I just think he is tired of administrating the site and started the whole politics thing hoping that it would implode on itself and run everyone off!


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Hey it would be kind of cool to change this thread to the "minefield" or should that be mindfield....oh crap let's just call it seinfeld.
> 
> I do agree to disagree, but if you ever met me in person, politics is the last thing I really want to talk about, honest. I just have been enjoying the discourse, a nice exchange and truly apoligize if I've offended anyones political stance, not my intent. rns
> 
> Now lets talk religion. :fu


I certainly don't take any offense! I find your comments well informed and an addition to the thread!

:u


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

summerkc said:


> THank you for defending my right to voice my opinions and trying to uphold the 1st admendment, it really has taken a beating lately, especially from the Kerry campaign who has called on television stations to stop the swift boat ads, called on the publisher of "Unfit for Command" to recall the book, and called for bookstores to remove it from the shelves or put it in the fiction section. Might as well have a good ole fashioned book burning. And they complained about the Patriot Act? You could cut the hypocrisy around the Democrats with a knife its so thick.
> 
> Did you hear the Bush campaign call on Kerry and Michael Moore to stop Farenheit 9/11, or stop commercials from Moveon.org? No.


Anytime!

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> You know, I thought about your point for a long while. It then occurred to me that this is why the Swift Vet guys are so upset. Senator Kerry disparaged their military record by saying they all committed atrocitites and that this was a regular feature of the war in Vietnam.
> 
> The Swift Vets have every right to challenge Senator Kerry's description of their actions and his account of what occurred. And Senator Kerry has the right to defend his description of the events.
> 
> ...


It occurs to me that, though Kerry made his military service his sole qualification for being President, a major point is missed.

That he went to Paris during the negotiations, as a commissioned officer in the USNR, and gave interviews, aide and comfort to the North Vietnamese is morally repugnant. In my eyes, he helped prolong the war and maybe a boy or two were killed needlessly because of him.

He has carried that ethos and morality with him through his 20 years in the Senate. These years are extremely telling of what he believes and who he really is. No wonder he never speaks of it.

That is what needs to be examined and discussed. A 30 year old nightmare needs to be re-buried, it simply misses the point as does Kery's emphasis on it. Reagan never saw combat and look what he accomplished. A war record really isn't necessary, I side with the Clinton's on that.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

assafire said:


> ....through his 20 years in the Senate. These years are extremely telling of what he believes and who he really is. No wonder he never speaks of it.
> 
> That is what needs to be examined and discussed.


IMHO... that is exactly what the Bush campaign will do from Labor Day til Nov. 2.

The Swifites will keep the Nam thing alive but those legs will shorten considerably.

Look for Bush to ruthlessly hammer Kerry's record and catch him in flip-flop after flip-flop.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Some interesting developments in the Swift Vet controversy....

_XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE AUG 24, 2004 11:09:31 ET XXXXX _

*KERRY PHONES SWIFT BOAT FOES*

**World Exclusive**

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry reached out to Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans.

Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking.

Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV.

The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE.

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "When we dedicated swift boat one in '92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn't talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans."

Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.

*Veterans reject Bush appeal to end Kerry blitz*
_Date: August 25 2004_

By Stewart Powell

A group of Vietnam veterans bankrolled by George Bush supporters has rejected an appeal by the President and is vowing to continue a controversial series of TV ads criticising the Vietnam combat record of the Democratic challenger, John Kerry.

Roy Hoffmann, a retired admiral and founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said his organisation of more than 250 Vietnam veterans would continue to raise questions about Senator Kerry's combat service.

The anti-Kerry veterans planned a second week-long wave of campaign ads beginning yesterday in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Nevada. The ad, highlighting Senator Kerry's congressional testimony about alleged atrocities by American GIs after his return from combat, appeared on the veterans' website on Friday.

Mr Bush, speaking to reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, said Senator Kerry "served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record".

The President's appeal came in the form of a broad request for all so-called "527" political organisations to cease campaign advertising. The privately funded organisations take their names from the section of the tax code regulating their activities.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is one of the groups, as is the anti-Bush organisation MoveOn.org. "I don't think we ought to have 527s," said Mr Bush. "I think they're bad for the system."

Asked if he was calling on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to cease their onslaught, Mr Bush replied: "All of them. That means that [Kerry] ad [and] every other ad."

The Democratic vice-presidential candidate, John Edwards, accused Mr Bush of ducking responsibility for his allies' campaign attacks, which questioned whether Senator Kerry faced enemy fire in an operation for which the young US Navy skipper won the Bronze Star.

"The moment of truth came and went and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," Senator Edwards said in a statement. "Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air."

A senior Kerry campaign strategist, Tad Devine, told reporters that Republican allegations against Senator Kerry would backfire on Mr Bush because "the allegations are not true and the President is behind them".

The Bush campaign and Admiral Hoffmann have denied any co-ordination, which would be illegal under US law.

The Kerry campaign has fought back against Admiral Hoffmann's group with two new TV ads in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia. One Kerry ad accused Mr Bush of similarly smearing John McCain, the Republican senator, four years ago in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination, saying: "Now he's doing it to John Kerry."

Senator McCain, a career navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, lost to Mr Bush in the hard-fought South Carolina presidential primary after Bush supporters distributed windshield leaflets accusing the senator of opposing legislation in Congress that would help veterans. Senator McCain, who beat Mr Bush in the New Hampshire primary, never regained his momentum.

In a speech due to be delivered in New York late yesterday, Senator Kerry was expected to accuse Mr Bush of weakening the middle class, many of whom fear losing their jobs.

More than 1.1 million jobs have been lost since Mr Bush entered the White House and there is growing public concern over the number of jobs going to low-wage countries such as China and India.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Analysis regarding the Swift Vets and Bush...

_BY JAMES TARANTO _ 
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:33 p.m. EDT

*Bush: 86 the 527s*

"Never murder a man who is committing suicide," Woodrow Wilson once said. President Bush seems to be following that advice, refusing to be drawn into the controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's allegations about John Kerry's Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president did, however, make a procedural criticism of the group, as the New York Times reports:

In response to reporters' questions, the president once again condemned the so-called 527 groups, which can raise unlimited donations and run attack ads, but cannot directly coordinate their efforts with the campaigns. . . .

"All of them," the president said, when asked whether he specifically meant that the veteran's group's ad against Mr. Kerry should be stopped. "That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527's. I can't be more plain about it, and I wish--I hope my opponent joins me in saying--condemning these activities of the 527's. It's--I think they're bad for the system."

For once we'd have to say Bush is actually vulnerable to criticism from civil libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest that no group except a campaign or a political party has the right to express its political views? And of course Bush is substantially to blame for the rise of 527s as an alternative to campaigns and parties, whose fund-raising and free speech are severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold law, which he signed.

The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is still demanding that the president defend their man:

"Again the president did the wrong thing today,'' said Chad Clanton, a [Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has refused to specifically condemn the smear campaign against John Kerry's military record.''

Has anyone stopped to ponder just how pathetic this is? For years we've been hearing from the Democrats that President Bush is a dummy, an illegitimate president, a liar, a military deserter, a "moral coward" and another Hitler--but now Kerry is begging Bush to use his moral authority to get him out of a fix that he himself created by running a campaign based almost entirely on "war hero" braggadocio.

Bush, of course, is wise not to do so. This isn't his battle; it's Kerry vs. Vietnam veterans--and Bush, as the Democrats never tire of reminding us, is not a Vietnam vet. The president has graciously given Kerry the benefit of the doubt, as the Times notes:

Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.''

That's real class. But it can't be emphasized enough that the same is true of the men who make up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Over the years Kerry has trashed them, first as war criminals and now as liars--but in terms of service to their country, every member of this group is at least Kerry's equal. It wouldn't hurt if President Bush, without endorsing their charges against Kerry, said a good word about their service in Vietnam.


----------



## El Gato (Apr 2, 2003)

If you feel you don't pay enough taxes vote for Kerry!
'nuf said!


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

While the NY Times persists in its usual game of partisan gotcha', real issues remain uninvestigated and undebated.

Will we see any expose' by the NYT of the DNC attorney that sits on the board of Moveon.org? Don't hold your breath. When its the Dems, it gets nothing but a casual dismissal from these paragons and sole holders of the truth. Compare and contrast, if Sandy Berger were a Republican, how many front page NYT stories would there have been by now?

How about criticism of Kerry's suits against broadcasters that air the ads? Where's the Swift Boat Vets right to free speech? They don't have one, unless they change sides.

This sinking level of political discourse is repugnant and dangerous to the Republic.


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

assafire said:


> Where's the Swift Boat Vets right to free speech? They don't have one, unless they change sides.


let's not be naive....do you actually think the swift boat vets are running these ads for any other reason than to support the republicans??? there's nothing at all wrong with that, they just shouldn't get on their high-horse and act like they are putting these ads on the air for any other reason.

*disclaimer* i am canadian, so i am not voting in this election, but i am generally a republican supporter. that said, i'm not a real big bush fan. if i were voting in this election, i guess i'd reluctantly go republican because the alternative is worse.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> let's not be naive....do you actually think the swift boat vets are running these ads for any other reason than to support the republicans??? there's nothing at all wrong with that, they just shouldn't get on their high-horse and act like they are putting these ads on the air for any other reason.
> 
> *disclaimer* i am canadian, so i am not voting in this election, but i am generally a republican supporter. that said, i'm not a real big bush fan. if i were voting in this election, i guess i'd reluctantly go republican because the alternative is worse.


The ads don't Specifically support Repubs, they are against Kerry. Why? Most of these 300 vets are real ticked about his activities just after getting back.

I mean here we have the war hero who faced shot and shell, but he can't stand up to these guys? All he needs to do is release his records, and he would if they would support his version of things. He's hiding something, these guys have nailed it, here come the lawyers.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> let's not be naive....do you actually think the swift boat vets are running these ads for any other reason than to support the republicans??? there's nothing at all wrong with that, they just shouldn't get on their high-horse and act like they are putting these ads on the air for any other reason.
> 
> *disclaimer* i am canadian, so i am not voting in this election, but i am generally a republican supporter. that said, i'm not a real big bush fan. if i were voting in this election, i guess i'd reluctantly go republican because the alternative is worse.


I actually think the Swifties are running the ads because of Senator Kerry's actions 30+ years ago when he betrayed his fellow sailors through his anti-war activities.


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

so you really think that if we weren't in the middle of an election campaign that the swift boat vets would be airing these ads??? sorry, i just can't buy it. however, you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> so you really think that if we weren't in the middle of an election campaign that the swift boat vets would be airing these ads??? sorry, i just can't buy it. however, you are entitled to your opinion.


The "leader" of the Swifties has been fighting Kerry for 30 years while he has been running in the senate and before.

But before now he hasn't really been able to be a threat to the country but now if he becomes president he really can do some damage so he is stepping up the attacks (which there is nother wrong with, just look at all the attacks on Bush by people who don't like him).

And BTW, the leader and main author of the book is not a republican. He hasn't voted for a republican for president since Reagan. He says he is an Independant (which usually means democrat).


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> The "leader" of the Swifties has been fighting Kerry for 30 years while he has been running in the senate and before.
> 
> But before now he hasn't really been able to be a threat to the country but now if he becomes president he really can do some damage so he is stepping up the attacks (which there is nother wrong with, just look at all the attacks on Bush by people who don't like him).
> 
> And BTW, the leader and main author of the book is not a republican. He hasn't voted for a republican for president since Reagan. He says he is an Independant (which usually means democrat).


Well said. With Kerry as a Senator, the threat is diluted by 99 other Senators, a House of Reps and a President. He is a rank opportunist who only has his Military record as a major qualification to be President, how else can everyone ignore 20 years in the Senate. He wants to be anti-war and the war hero. As President, all his actions will get a pass, all scandal will be "pure partisanship"as told to us by a suddenly, very compliant press.

These guys have always had a hard on for him. Hell, I'm a Viet Vet, I still won't see or do anything that concerns Hanoi Jane. Thats 30 years of hate for what she did And no, I won't let it go. Traitors should be hounded to death, literally. If I lived in Mass., I'd have worked hard against the SOB.


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are sinking like the Titantic. Douglas Brinkley, Roy Hoffman, George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale have been caught in lies. They've contradicted what they said themselves a couple of years ago and contradicted what is in the Navy's records. Dr. Louis Letson, William Schachte Jr, and Larry Thurlow have all made claims that are totally unsubstantiated and are counter to records obtained from the Navy under the freedom of information act. Now, it has come to light that John O'Neill, Margaret Wilson, Tex Lezar, Ken Cordier, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Merrie Spaeth all have ties to both the Bush administration and the Swifties.. And now they're beginning to jump ship like rats in a fire. Ken Cordier resigned a couple of days ago and now Benjamin Ginsberg, the Bush administrations election lawyer has been forced to resign because of his direct link between the administration and the Swift Boat Veterans. The Swifties and the Bush campaign people are scrambling like cockroaches now!

There is no way Bush can govern the country effectively at this point and it is totally irresponsible for him to stay in office through the remainder of the year. Will he have the decency to step down immediately or will he attempt to serve his own interests, risk impeachment proceedings, and stay in office? The Bush administration and election campaign is really beginning to come apart at the seams. I knew they shouldn't have tried to take John Kerry on with the Vietnam issue. 

As an independent, I'm not that fond of either Bush or Kerry. However, I've got to pick the lesser of two evils. I'm probably gonna go with Kerry this time around and I urge the rest of you to put aside your partisan beliefs, think for yourselves, and do the right thing as well.

God Bless America.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are sinking like the Titantic. Douglas Brinkley, Roy Hoffman, George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale have been caught in lies. They've contradicted what they said themselves a couple of years ago and contradicted what is in the Navy's records. Dr. Louis Letson, William Schachte Jr, and Larry Thurlow have all made claims that are totally unsubstantiated and are counter to records obtained from the Navy under the freedom of information act. Now, it has come to light that John O'Neill, Margaret Wilson, Tex Lezar, Ken Cordier, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Merrie Spaeth all have ties to both the Bush administration and the Swifties.. And now they're beginning to jump ship like rats in a fire. Ken Cordier resigned a couple of days ago and now Benjamin Ginsberg, the Bush administrations election lawyer has been forced to resign because of his direct link between the administration and the Swift Boat Veterans. The Swifties and the Bush campaign people are scrambling like cockroaches now!
> 
> There is no way Bush can govern the country effectively at this point and it is totally irresponsible for him to stay in office through the remainder of the year. Will he have the decency to step down immediately or will he attempt to serve his own interests, risk impeachment proceedings, and stay in office? The Bush administration and election campaign is really beginning to come apart at the seams. I knew they shouldn't have tried to take John Kerry on with the Vietnam issue.
> 
> ...


If the Swifites were _sinking like the Titanic_, Senator Kerry's campaign would not be paying so much attention to them.

President Bush can't govern the nation effectively? Please explain. He seems to be doing a pretty good job in my eyes. Consider the War on Terror. How many attacks have occured on US soil since 9/11? Zero!

Risk impeachment? Man, CigarTom, you need to explain this one... Where on earth did you get an idea like that?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> so you really think that if we weren't in the middle of an election campaign that the swift boat vets would be airing these ads??? sorry, i just can't buy it. however, you are entitled to your opinion.


Of course they are airing their ads during the campaign! They are angry at Senator Kerry's actions after the war and see this as a perfect time to show that he is (pardon my stealing of the title) "Unfit for Command."

When else would they air these ads?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I thought this article was quite good in explaining the early moves of the campaign. I highlighted a part I found quite interesting...

*War of credibility in White House bid*

_By Michael Tackett
Chicago Tribune_
August 24, 2004

WASHINGTON -- It is not surprising that this presidential campaign is consumed by a raging debate over a war. It is stunning that the war in question ended in Vietnam 30 years ago.

With real-time firefights every day in Iraq, with nearly 1,000 American soldiers killed in the conflict, the campaigns of Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush, or their surrogates, are focused on the did-he-or-didn't-he details of Kerry's record as a combat swift boat commander when he was in his early 20s.

In a campaign that already has had its share of novel twists, this carries risks and opportunities for both candidates. And it is possible that both have overplayed their hands.

Those sympathetic to the president are trying to undercut what Kerry has promoted as the fundamental strength of his candidacy - that as a former battle-tested Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, he possesses exemplary, even preferable, credentials to be commander in chief.

There are early signs that the Bush supporters' strategy has worked, fanned by the widespread media coverage of the accusations made by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry lied about his war record.

Kerry's campaign has responded, somewhat belatedly, with forceful counterattacks, but it is still defending his four months in Vietnam instead of challenging the president over his prosecution of the war in Iraq.

To be sure, Kerry invited strong scrutiny of his record because he made it the mantra for his White House run. In Iowa, his flagging effort surged after Jim Rassmann, a Republican whose life Kerry saved in Vietnam, appeared at a Kerry campaign rally to endorse him.

Kerry has followed a very traditional candidate-as-war-hero model, but he has hardly been subtle about it.

Kerry's supporters are now accusing the president of a smear campaign, and clearly there is precedent for the Bush family enjoying the negative fruits of shadow groups to make a frontal attack that the candidate himself would never dare make.

In 1988, an independent group ran an advertisement that skewered Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for supporting a prison furlough program. The ad depicted a menacing-looking inmate named Willie Horton, who committed rape and murder while on a furlough.

The first President Bush disavowed any connection to the effort. The second President Bush watched as a shadow group savaged Sen. John McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary.

Just because the tactics are rough doesn't mean they are not effective.

"Until now, it was sort of accepted that his [Kerry's] performance in service was valorous," said Ross K. Baker, a presidential scholar at Rutgers University. "The fact that some percentage of voters are reappraising this, I think, represents a victory for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I always felt that this was a man who was surrounded by a fence of medals," Baker said. "It's like the story of the man with the crucifix and the vampire. Here, clearly, the vampire is more resourceful than we gave him credit for."

For the past several weeks, Kerry has been drawn into a fight with the swift boat group over his military service. There is some fury over the nature of the fight, mostly running in Kerry's favor, but little evidence that he has benefited from it. And for Republican partisans, the issue stokes anti-Kerry energy.

Unclear is whether or not it might provoke a backlash.

That was made plain when Dole, whose World War II wounds permanently disabled him, went on CNN Sunday to challenge the authenticity of Kerry's three Purple Hearts, strongly implying that Kerry used those medals as a device to leave his Vietnam service early.

But the effort also could be making inroads among a small percentage of critical undecided voters.

*"Some of the polls show preliminarily that this is beginning to have some influence on independent voters," said Terry Madonna, director of the nonpartisan Keystone Poll in Pennsylvania. "The second thing is that the vociferousness of Democratic response indicates that it is having some success."

Any incremental movement to a candidate could be important, Madonna said.

For his part, Kerry has benefited from many attacks on Bush conducted by Democratic-funded independent committees such as MoveOn.Org. Millions have been spent to muddy the president, even to the point of offering up a plan to impeach him. Those efforts have also been effective.*

For now, though, it is supporters of the president who have dominated the conversation, and it might well not matter who is ultimately correct, even if the facts as are known today seem to heavily favor Kerry's version of events.

The president's backers have driven the conversation for this stage of the campaign during what was otherwise thought to be a typically news-free August. Now the president can go to his nominating convention in New York and talk about his priorities for the next four years.

It is impossible to know if the battle over Kerry's war record will have a lasting impact, but it is clear that it has consumed at least a couple of weeks, and on terms far more favorable to the president.


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

summerkc said:


> I also don't understand how you can say that commanding a 50 ft. boat and serving for four months is the equivalent or better than leading the country during 9/11, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, and a recession that started Nov. of 2000 as all of your "coward republicans" did.
> 
> And then you attack me as if I am not allowed to discuss anything because I've never served in the military. Well, I've never murdered a person so I can't discuss putting other murderers in jail if I was on a jury or a judge? Or I can't discuss sports because I've never been on a pro sports team? Good argument.


Earth to summerkc! I never said anything about commanding a 50 foot boat, 9/11, the war on terror, and all the other crap you're attributing to me. You're lying like a Swift Boat Veteran now. Show me where I said that crap!

Furthermore, I didn't say you weren't allowed to discuss anything because you never served in the military. My assertion was that it is easy to talk tough when someone else is fighting your battles for you. Claiming that I said you weren't allowed to discuss anything is a false predicate. And following up with an analogy that you can't have an opinion about murderers because you never murdered anyone is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would disagree with your analogy. I didn't say anything about your right to an opinion, nor did I say anything about murderers.

No wonder you're a Bush groupie. Bush uses false predicates to respond to questions all the time. If questioned about the wisdom of making a unitateral, pre-emptive assault on Iraq based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda, he responds with BS such as, "isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein in power?" No one is likely to disagree with that remark just as no one would disagree with your murderer analogy. However, the responses have nothing to do with the question.

I said it's easy to talk tough when someone else is fighting your battles for you and asked why don't you enlist? You responded with "I may, I can't, I wish I could" proving my point exactly. That pissed you off so you pretended I said things I didn't say and then responded to them. Your ability to re-write history is right up there with the Swifties!


----------



## CigarTom (Aug 27, 2003)

"TEN OUT OF TEN TERRORISTS WANT ANYONE BUT BUSH"

I'm inclined to think just the opposite. I think George Bush has added fuel to the terrorists' fire. It's possible that just the fact that a second George Bush came into office got them riled up. But, more to the point, I would think, our invading Iraq unilaterally based on falsehoods (WMDs and Al Qaeda links) has done nothing but give the terrorists proof that America is evil. The terrorists are religious loonies who are not afraid of dying. They think they will get 70 virgins in heaven for dying for their cause. I doubt very much the terrorists live in fear of George Bush. I think he's playing right into their hands.

Also, George Bush blew off most of the support the U.S. enjoyed with many other nations in the past, so now we are stuck with all of Iraq's problems on our own. Like Colin Powell said, "if you invade Iraq, you've bought it." Keeping George Bush in office reduces the likelihood that we will be able to get the support, financially, militarily, and philosophically from other nations. A new president, such as Kerry (or anyone else) is more likely to be able to mend the fences with other countries and gain their support in Iraq.

So I disagree with the notion that the terrorists want anyone but Bush in office. I think just the opposite.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> "TEN OUT OF TEN TERRORISTS WANT ANYONE BUT BUSH"
> 
> I'm inclined to think just the opposite. I think George Bush has added fuel to the terrorists' fire. It's possible that just the fact that a second George Bush came into office got them riled up. But, more to the point, I would think, our invading Iraq unilaterally based on falsehoods (WMDs and Al Qaeda links) has done nothing but give the terrorists proof that America is evil. The terrorists are religious loonies who are not afraid of dying. They think they will get 70 virgins in heaven for dying for their cause. I doubt very much the terrorists live in fear of George Bush. I think he's playing right into their hands.
> 
> ...


Why is the intelligence saying the terrorists want to disrupt the elections? Because it worked in Spain and they got the government they wanted. President Bush has carried the war to their land and has attacked them on their turf. Personally, I like that!

On August 16th, the Canton Repository printed this article about Anarchists (I consider them terrorists, at least domestic terrorists - see Seattle WTO)

_Anarchists Support Kerry

ATHENS, Ohio - A group of anarchists is taking an unusual step to make its political voice heard - going to the polls.

Anarchists generally pride themselves on their rejection of government and its authority. But a faction of them fed up with the war in Iraq say they plan to cast anti-Bush votes this fall.

The voting debate was just one of the topics explored at the three-day North American Anarchist Convergence, which brought about 175 participants to Ohio University.

Some attendees rejected the voting proposal.

"Ultimately, those who are voting are either bad anarchists or not anarchists at all," said Lawrence, a "Californian in his mid-40s" who declined to give his last name. "No one can represent my interests. We reject political professionals."

Others said they are embracing their right to engage in the political process, and plan to vote for John Kerry (news - web sites), Ralph Nader (news - web sites) or anyone who can underscore their opposition to the Bush administration.

Susan Heitker, 32, of Athens, believes that the U.S. government is neither legitimate nor democratic, but she still plans to vote.

"To me, at least, it's important to vote," she said. "There was a time when I was not going to vote, but I really dislike Bush."

Howard Ehrlich, of Baltimore, also embraces his right to "engage the political system."

"I will certainly vote against George Bush because he is leading the nation to further violence and eroding civil liberties," said Ehrlich, who is editor of Social Anarchism, a 3,000-circulation magazine._

It also seems to me that there are still coalition troops fighting the War on Terror. Great Britain has a large contingent of troups in southern Iraq (my friend is with a unit supporting this contingent). As recently as August 22nd, a Polish soldier made the ultimate sacrifice, so to say other countries are not supporting us militarily is not supported by the facts.

*And, on a more personal note - * I enjoy the diversity of opinion, but I don't enjoy your personal attacks on summerkc. I find this type of ad hominem attacks quite offensive. Make your point any way you choose, but this type of argument is a fallacy that makes me tend to think your argument is hollow.

_*And I don't want to think your arguments are hollow, okay?*_


----------



## NeWcS (Aug 18, 2004)

summerkc said:


> leading the country during 9/11, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, .


This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read In my life' OMFG you have to be kidding me.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

NeWcS said:


> This has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read In my life' OMFG you have to be kidding me.


Rather than making an ad hominem attack on summerkc, why don't you try to make a lucid point that adds to the thread.

When you make a fallacious statement against a good brother of the leaf like the above one, I find your points to ring rather hollow.

So, I propose let's all step it up and cease the ad hominem attacks (gosh, I sound like a politician! :r )!


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

The 5 veterans featured in the swiftboats ads have been documented in contradicting statements on ALL accounts in the run in on John Kerry's military record. This is why they are not sinking like the Titantic. They have effectively lied about John Kerry's military record. That is news. 

Hey if I had a best selling book and a lot of publicity for free, I'm a capitalist, I'd make hay while I could. Monica Lewinsky did the same thing, even though it was kind of embarassing, at least she was honest.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

It is a sad day when the man running the worlds most powerful country does not know what the word sovereign means. This screw-up is so bad he even gets a few laughs from the crowd. [Clicky]

I don't know if this has been posted or not, I don't think it has. I don't know if I should laugh, or be really worried.


----------



## NeWcS (Aug 18, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Rather than making an ad hominem attack on summerkc, why don't you try to make a lucid point that adds to the thread.
> 
> When you make a fallacious statement against a good brother of the leaf like the above one, I find your points to ring rather hollow.
> 
> So, I propose let's all step it up and cease the ad hominem attacks (gosh, I sound like a politician! :r )!


I don't think I need to tell you why this is so funny to me, I think summerkc's statement speaks for it's self. And it wasn't a personal attack on him just what he said, I didn't reply cause he said it, I would have said that to anyone making such a funny statement. Thats all.


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

guys, this thread is starting to look like it has the potential to get very heated. let's remember that we are all BOTL and not make any personal attacks or get offended just because someone has an opinion that may differ from your own. this is not aimed at anyone in particular.....remember, we all have to live with each other post-election.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> guys, this thread is starting to look like it has the potential to get very heated. let's remember that we are all BOTL and not make any personal attacks or get offended just because someone has an opinion that may differ from your own. this is not aimed at anyone in particular.....remember, we all have to live with each other post-election.


Well said!!!!

:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> Furthermore, I didn't say you weren't allowed to discuss anything because you never served in the military. My assertion was that it is *easy to talk tough when someone else is fighting your battles for you*. Claiming that I said you weren't allowed to discuss anything is a false predicate.
> 
> *I said it's easy to talk tough when someone else is fighting your battles for you and asked why don't you enlist? You responded with "I may, I can't, I wish I could" proving my point exactly. *


Again, twice you said I can't comment on the situation until I am in the military, because 'they' are fighting my battles. Why don't you just give me a list of topics that I can discuss so I can be sure I'm not letting anyone else fight my battles, ok?

Im so sick of so called "free speech" liberals trying to censor everybody!


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> It is a sad day when the man running the worlds most powerful country does not know what the word sovereign means. This screw-up is so bad he even gets a few laughs from the crowd. [Clicky]
> 
> I don't know if this has been posted or not, I don't think it has. I don't know if I should laugh, or be really worried.


How about you give your definition of tribal sovereignty means and how it should be dealt with and affected by state and federal governments? The question is not asking what the word sovereign means, he is asking how Indian tribes should be handled.

If John Kerry answered the question: "I voted for tribal sovereignty....before I voted against it"

You have to admit though, it was a damn funny answer.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

CigarTom said:


> Earth to summerkc!
> 
> No wonder you're a Bush groupie. Bush uses false predicates to respond to questions all the time. If questioned about the wisdom of making a unitateral, pre-emptive assault on Iraq based on lies about weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda, he responds with BS such as, "isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein in power?" No one is likely to disagree with that remark just as no one would disagree with your murderer analogy. However, the responses have nothing to do with the question.
> 
> I said it's easy to talk tough when someone else is fighting your battles for you and asked why don't you enlist? You responded with "I may, I can't, I wish I could" proving my point exactly. That pissed you off so you pretended I said things I didn't say and then responded to them. Your ability to re-write history is right up there with the Swifties!


No link to Al-Quaida? Better read page 63 of the 9/11 report. They detail Saddam's attempt to lure OBL to live in Iraq. It is sheer fantasy to believe AL-Quada was in Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Florida and Buffalo, NY, but somehow avoided the guy who paid $20k to families of suicide bombers.

Did we make the terrorists mad with our invasion? Yes, Iraq would have likely provided them additional means of terror. Are they pissed? They killed 3000 Americans one day. Just exactly what makes you believe they were going away or felt sated?

You are just a Kerry Kool-Aid drinker with no facility to understand much through your hate. The Swifties message is coming through. Oh, and where is your outrage about the DNC lawyer that sits on the board of MOVEON.org?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> No link to Al-Quaida? Better read page 63 of the 9/11 report. They detail Saddam's attempt to lure OBL to live in Iraq. It is sheer fantasy to believe AL-Quada was in Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Florida and Buffalo, NY, but somehow avoided the guy who paid $20k to families of suicide bombers.
> 
> Did we make the terrorists mad with our invasion? Yes, Iraq would have likely provided them additional means of terror. Are they pissed? They killed 3000 Americans one day. Just exactly what makes you believe they were going away or felt sated?
> 
> You are just a Kerry Kool-Aid drinker with no facility to understand much through your hate. The Swifties message is coming through. Oh, and where is your outrage about the DNC lawyer that sits on the board of MOVEON.org?


Well said!!!!

:u


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

summerkc said:


> Again, twice you said I can't comment on the situation until I am in the military, because 'they' are fighting my battles. Why don't you just give me a list of topics that I can discuss so I can be sure I'm not letting anyone else fight my battles, ok?
> 
> Im so sick of so called "free speech" liberals trying to censor everybody!


Agreed. Every member of this country serves it in some way, some more than others. Some enlist, all pay taxes, some vote conservative. The important thing is that we do the right thing for our country and do not harm it by voting in policies that have been proven ineffective both in theory and in practice (Russia, Cuba, China, Canada, France, Germany, etc etc etc). These words are not entirely mine, they are the words of a friend who has enlisted in the Marines now that he has graduated from college. We were having a late night discussion about the fact that I cannot join the military due to medical reasons.

We must follow logic, not rhetoric. Think about that statement, you cannot comment or make decisions regarding war since you we never a part of it. To reduce this, you did not perform A, therefore you cannot comment or make decisions regarding A. To expand, you have never committed or been murdered, therefore you cannot make comments or decisions regarding the legality of murder.

We are in this fight together, one nation. We may have different opinions, but if everyone is presented with the same facts and examines them logically, there will be one answer. There is no such thing as a contradiction, only faulty premises.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

assafire said:


> You are just a Kerry Kool-Aid drinker with no facility to understand much through your hate. The Swifties message is coming through. Oh, and where is your outrage about the DNC lawyer that sits on the board of MOVEON.org?


The Swifties message did come through. It was documented and printed in 99% of the major newspapers this past week. ALL 5 vets in the ads have at one point either contradicted earlier statements or, much worse, outright lied about a mans military record. I'm amazed by how gullible some folks are. Now if you want to change the strategy to his post Vietnam statements, fine. The first message of the Swiftboaters is not true. Do you disagree? Is the USN records a lie? Are the eyewitness reports false? Did Kerry's crewmembers make up a battle? Does anybody read the actual newspapers?

Calling cigartom a man who has "no facility to understand thru his hate" is very healing. He is not endorsing Kerry, yet he is a Kerry Kool Aid drinker? Of course I need not defend cigartom, he is quite capable of doing that himself, as he was when he defended the USofA in Vietnam.

Who is the DNC lawyer on the board of MOVEON.org.? I'll gladly follow that trail........I do hate political advertising outside the actual candidates party.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> Calling cigartom a man who has "no facility to understand thru his hate" is very healing. He is not endorsing Kerry, yet he is a Kerry Kool Aid drinker? Of course I need not defend cigartom, he is quite capable of doing that himself, as he was when he defended the USofA in Vietnam.
> 
> Who is the DNC lawyer on the board of MOVEON.org.? I'll gladly follow that trail........I do hate political advertising outside the actual candidates party.


As far as the Swifties go, have they been found to be wrong on every assertion, or are there debatable issues? Anyway, after 30 years, this is score settling as much as anything. But, if there were no truth, Kerry could blow these guys out of the water (no pun intended). I say let him release his records, lets get to the bottom of it now and dispose of it immediately so we can focus on real issues, not "he said, he said".

I also defended the USA in Viet Nam, I am a vet. I hope you weren't trying to minimize me with cubantom's service. I'll be gald to post my DD214, it also lists my medals. I abhor Kerry and what he did thereafter.

As to the DNC lawyer, lets see if the NY TImes gets there first. If not, it won't matter anyway. I'm betting not.

Please also note, that little has been given as a positive reason to vote for Kerry. Just the same old Bush lied, WMD, no Al-Quaida, etc, etc. That's the party line. No critical thought, no research, just hate Bush. Its a lousy foundation upon which to elect a man.

On WMD, Bush, Clinton and Kerry have all said pretty much the same thing in the past. Easy research. If Bush lied, so did Clinton and Kerry. The beliefs on WMD couldn't have been true then, but suddenly a lie now unless you simply don't care to know the truth. When you hate someone, the truth can be a nuisance.

Remember the incredible attention focused on the atrocities at Abu-Grhraib? Yet we are being asked to elect a self-confessed war criminal, "The New American Soldier, J Kerry". Thats what I mean by critical thinking, how does one reconcile this?

And how about his fantastic assertion that he can get France and Germany to do the heavy lifting in Iraq after he cuts and runs? So far, they have indicated that ain't so. Have you seen it on the alphabet media anywhere, or at all?

How does one square up a "Stronger America" with Kerry's anti-military record through 20 years of the US Senate? When did he get religion? Or is it said just to get elected? And if its just to get elected, then thats kinda' scary, isn't it? The terrorists are tough people, they won't be awed by John Kerry flapping his soup coolers. You will not see the NY Times dissect his record or ask him to answer my simple questions, yet wouldn't that serve the electorate better if they knew?

Yet his record is a fact that is very much ignored while Kerry alone made his Viet Nam service the qualification for his election. No one else did and now, others are saying different. But, I think the Swiftie thing is a footnote to the above. But, a few thousands more veterans have decided he is not the man.

The answer to many of the above questions is simply "I don't care, anybody but Bush". Quite a foundation for the Republic, but it is their right, the one I gladly defended and would do so, again.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I'm not to sure how to respond. What would the debate be about? I don't think it would last very long. O'Niell and Kerry did debate once on Dick Cavett 30+ years ago. At that point it was on the Vietnam war, Pro or Con. 

The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting its claim of John Kerry's Military service. Not one. Yet through verification and double checking, AP, Rueters, NYT, and a host of other media outlets did find falsehoods in each and every Swifty who spoke out against Kerry on his military record. John Kerry may not be who you, I or anybody else wants to vote for, but he did do what he said he did. There is no debate really. It is a smear campaign that John McCain still is trying to calm. Kerry denounced three ads earlier this month attacking President Bush's NG service immediately. Is that negative? I see no benefit to anybody anywhere disparaging anyone over this. 

I'm sorry that Cigar Tom, (not cubantom) has offended you so. Most all of the Vietnam Vets I've worked with have tolerence beyond the norm. 

Benjamin Ginsburg had a conflict of interest advising Swiftboats and Bush as one of President Bush's top Campaign Lawyers. It is the right thing to do, resign. 

I am looking all over for the DNC Lawyer who is on the board of the MoveOn.org. 527 group.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

"Robert Bauer, national counsel to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, also works for the Bush-hating, pro-Kerry 527 group that calls itself America Coming Together". and, 

"Democrat lawyer Joe Sandler insisted there was nothing wrong with working for DNC as well as for MoveOn."


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Kerry lies. Kerry is telling the truth.
Swift Vets lie. Swift Vets are telling the truth.
Back and forth. Back and forth.

I have a question. Since a lot of this controversy is about Kerry's Purple Hearts, etc....

Why doesn't John Kerry sign the release for ALL of his Naval medical records? He has refused to do so.

It would seem if Kerry was telling the truth, these records would go a long way towards him making his case and discrediting the Swifties.

Why won't he release them? Is he hiding something or is it just on principles he refuses to do it?


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I'm not to sure how to respond. What would the debate be about? I don't think it would last very long. O'Niell and Kerry did debate once on Dick Cavett 30+ years ago. At that point it was on the Vietnam war, Pro or Con.
> 
> The anti-Kerry group has not produced any official Navy documents supporting its claim of John Kerry's Military service. Not one. Yet through verification and double checking, AP, Rueters, NYT, and a host of other media outlets did find falsehoods in each and every Swifty who spoke out against Kerry on his military record. John Kerry may not be who you, I or anybody else wants to vote for, but he did do what he said he did. There is no debate really. It is a smear campaign that John McCain still is trying to calm. Kerry denounced three ads earlier this month attacking President Bush's NG service immediately. Is that negative? I see no benefit to anybody anywhere disparaging anyone over this.
> 
> ...


I agree Ginsberg did the right thing as no one is prepared to believe he could keep both groups seperate despite legal ethics. There are issues still open on Kerry. I haven't seen a total refutation of it all, Certainly none from Kerry, no denial, just his anger. Lets see his records. Remember the calls for Bush te release his? I don't hear that, now. Yet if his service is perfectly noble, what's the problem? Issues simply must remain, or he would dispose of them. Again, it all misses the larger issues I outlined above.

Also, If being a war hero were the be all, end all to be President, where's President Dole? Everyone said a military record meant nothing just a scant 8 years ago. Truly, it is not the final arbiter of who should and shouldn't be President.

Many of the Vets I've known don't like Jane or John. Many just put it behind, I did, till Kerry starts making War Hero his sole qualification. Other Vet friends just brought home bad habits. I wasn't so much offended, I just won't have my service disrespected. If I've been over sensitive, I apologize.

Now, when may I expect the denuncialtion of Lawyer Bauer as he is in the same situation as Ginsberg? May I have some thoughts on the issues I raised, the ones that really matter, like national defense? May I have a positive reason to vote Kerry?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I am looking all over for the DNC Lawyer who is on the board of the MoveOn.org. 527 group.


Democrat lawyer Joe Sandler works for the DNC and Moveon.org. He has insisted there was nothing wrong with working for DNC as well as for MoveOn.

Zach Exley is a Kerry campaign staffer who was a director for Moveon.org.

Personally, I think the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill created this problem. I think it is quite restrictive to the 1st ammendment rights of individuals.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Looks like the Swifties are having an effect...

*Bush Edges Ahead of Kerry for the 1st Time*

Thu Aug 26, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!

By Ronald Brownstein Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) heads into next week's Republican National Convention with voters moving slightly in his direction since July amid signs that Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) has been nicked by attacks on his service in Vietnam, a Times poll has found. 
For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush.

That small shift from July was within the poll's margin of error. But it fit with other findings in the Times poll showing the electorate edging toward Bush over the past month on a broad range of measures, from support for his handling of Iraq to confidence in his leadership and honesty.

Although a solid majority of Americans say they believe Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, the poll showed that the attacks on the senator from a group of Vietnam veterans criticizing his performance in combat and his antiwar protests at home have left some marks: Kerry suffered small but consistent erosion compared with July on questions relating to his Vietnam experience, his honesty and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.

The Times Poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,597 adults, including 1,352 registered voters nationwide, from Saturday through Tuesday. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

With independent voters splitting evenly in the survey between the two men, one key to Bush's tentative new advantage was his greater success at consolidating his base. While 3% of voters who called themselves Republicans said they would vote for Kerry, Bush drew 15% of all Democrats, and 20% of Democrats who consider themselves moderate or conservative, the poll found.

Bush's advantage remained 3 percentage points when independent candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) was added to the mix. In a three-way race, Bush drew 47%, compared with 44% for Kerry and 3% for Nader, whose access to the ballot in many key states remains uncertain.

For all the promising signs for Bush, the poll found the president still threatened by a current of uneasiness about the nation's direction. In the survey, a slight majority of voters said they believed the country was on the wrong track. A majority also said the country was not better off because of his policies and needed to set a new course. And 45% said they believed his policies had hurt rather than helped the economy.

Those results suggested that a substantial part of the electorate remained open to change. But amid the firefight over Kerry's Vietnam service and uncertainty about his policy plans, the Democrat still has not built a constituency for his candidacy as large as the audience for change in general, the poll suggested. Nearly 1 in 5 voters who say the country needs to change policy direction is not supporting Kerry, according to the poll.

Pamela Sundberg, a disabled paralegal from Moorhead, Minn., who responded to the survey, crystallized the conflicting emotions among those drawn toward change but still resisting Kerry.

Sundberg voted for Bush in 2000, but now feels "we got ourselves in a mess in Iraq," where her son has been serving. She is dubious about Kerry, saying that "he's so back-and-forth about things."

But while leaning toward Bush now, she can envision switching to Kerry by November. "Maybe just for a change, he should be elected," she said.

*Swift Boat Divide *

The country divides mostly along predictable partisan lines on the exchanges between Kerry and the group that has attacked his Vietnam record over the past month, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But by several measures, the struggle appears to be drawing some blood from Kerry.

The Swift boat group, which has received funding from several of Bush's supporters and advice from some veteran Republican operatives, has made only relatively small purchases of television time in a few battleground states for its two ads, the first charging that Kerry did not deserve some of the five medals he won in Vietnam and the second criticizing his antiwar testimony before the Senate in 1971.

But with the controversy attracting intense media attention, especially on talk radio and cable television, the ads have achieved extraordinary visibility among voters. Fully 48% of those polled said they had seen the ad accusing Kerry of lying to win his medals; an additional 20% said they had heard about it. Similarly, 44% said they had seen the ad criticizing Kerry's Senate testimony; another 17% said they had heard about it.

At the same time, 18% of those surveyed said they "believe that Kerry misrepresented his war record and does not deserve his war medals," while 58% said Kerry "fought honorably and does deserve" the medals.

Attitudes on that question divided along party lines. As many Republicans said they believed Kerry was lying as believed he fought honorably. By nearly 10 to 1, Democrats said Kerry served honorably.

Independents sided with Kerry in the dispute by more than 5 to 1. Among them was Monika Schiel, a retiree in Gardena, Calif. "You have all the people that were on Kerry's boat-not somewhere downstream or upstream-confirming what he said," said Schiel. "This is some typical smear stuff; it seems mostly done by Republicans."

When voters were asked whether Kerry's protest against the war when he returned from Vietnam would influence their vote, 20% said it made them more likely to support him, while 26% said it reduced the chance they would back him, and 52% said it made no difference.

But if Kerry showed relatively few bruises on these questions directly measuring reactions to the veterans' charges against him, indirect measures suggested he had suffered more damage.

Asked how Kerry's overall military experience would affect their vote, 23% said it made them more likely to vote for him, while 21% said it made them less likely; the remaining 53% said it would make no difference. That has to be a disappointment for the Kerry camp after a Democratic convention last month that placed Kerry's Vietnam service at the top of the marquee.

Two other key questions produced even more troubling results for Kerry.

In the July Times poll, 53% of voters said Kerry had demonstrated in his Vietnam combat missions the "qualities America needs in a president," while 32% said that by "protesting the war in Vietnam, John Kerry (news - web sites) demonstrated a judgment and belief that is inappropriate in a president."

In the August survey, that balance nudged away from Kerry, with 48% saying he had demonstrated the right qualities and 37% saying he had exhibited poor judgment.

Likewise, the share of voters saying they lacked confidence in Kerry as a potential commander in chief edged up from 39% in July to 43% now; the percentage that said they were confident in him slipped from 57% to 55%. Both changes were within the poll's margin of error, yet both tracked with the poll's general pattern of slight Kerry slippage.

Similar trends were evident on voters' assessments of the two men's personal qualities. Compared with July, Bush slightly widened his advantage over Kerry when voters were asked which was a strong leader and which had the honesty and integrity to serve as president.

Following the poll's general trend, the percentage of voters who said they viewed Kerry favorably slipped from 58% in July to 53% in August, while the percentage who viewed him unfavorably ticked up from 36% to 41%. Bush's ratings were virtually unchanged from last month in this poll, with 53% viewing him favorably and 46% unfavorably.

The poll spotlighted another challenge for Kerry. After a Democratic convention that focused much more on Kerry's biography than his agenda, 58% said they knew even a fair amount about the policies he would pursue as president; nearly 4 in 10 said they knew not much or nothing at all.

By comparison, although Bush has put forward few specifics about his second-term priorities, 70% said they had a good idea of the policies he would pursue.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Democrat lawyer Joe Sandler works for the DNC and Moveon.org. He has insisted there was nothing wrong with working for DNC as well as for MoveOn.
> 
> Zach Exley is a Kerry campaign staffer who was a director for Moveon.org.
> 
> Personally, I think the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill created this problem. I think it is quite restrictive to the 1st ammendment rights of individuals.


 Yeah, the Bush administration and all of congress really screwed up this one, what were they thinking?

Before, sure there was soft money in politics going to the candidates, but at least you knew where it was coming from and how it was going to be used.

Now, if Moveon.org wanted to have a commercial saying that Bush rapes and murders women and children(which wouldn't be a big stretch for them), there is nothing nobody can do about it.

Why Bush signed that dumbass bill I'll never know, I'm sure it was just political pressure. It would be hard to veto it and then be accused of being a "soft money whore with big oil funding your campaign".


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Yeah, the Bush administration and all of congress really screwed up this one, what were they thinking?
> 
> Now, if Moveon.org wanted to have a commercial saying that Bush rapes and murders women and children(which wouldn't be a big stretch for them), there is nothing nobody can do about it.
> 
> Why Bush signed that dumbass bill I'll never know, I'm sure it was just political pressure. It would be hard to veto it and then be accused of being a "soft money whore with big oil funding your campaign".


Just wait, that ad is probably under consideration.

I can sort of understand Bush signing it. The electoral weakness of the win. And can't you hear it now? "Bush is reaping BILLIONS, no wonder he didn't want campaign finance reform". Never mind the assault on the 1st Amendment. And how the Supremes let it slide is utterly beyond me. Sandy O'Connor wants to teach, so I think she is just pandering to possible future employers.

Money will find its way into politics no matter. I say let anyone donate anything, as long as its disclosed. People might like to get to know George Soros and his plans for his adoptive country. Je' parle Francois? (sp?) :u


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Just wait, that ad is probably under consideration.
> 
> I can sort of understand Bush signing it. The electoral weakness of the win. And can't you hear it now? "Bush is reaping BILLIONS, no wonder he didn't want campaign finance reform". Never mind the assault on the 1st Amendment. And how the Supremes let it slide is utterly beyond me. Sandy O'Connor wants to teach, so I think she is just pandering to possible future employers.
> 
> Money will find its way into politics no matter. I say let anyone donate anything, as long as its disclosed. People might like to get to know George Soros and his plans for his adoptive country. Je' parle Francois? (sp?) :u


My take on President Bush's signing of the bill is that it was a populist move. He may have thought the Supreme Court would overturn it and when they didn't, he may have been shocked (I know I was!).

I wish they would delete that bill from the books - a clear abridgement of 1st ammendment rights!

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> My take on President Bush's signing of the bill is that it was a populist move.
> :u


Populist, thank you, thats the word I was trying to find. To think, I have a degree in Poli Sci and this is the best I can do.


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

assafire said:


> Populist, thank you, thats the word I was trying to find. To think, I have a degree in Poli Sci and this is the best I can do.


Poli Sci? I had a really good friend in school that got a political science degree. We lost touch after graduation, then I ran into him at a fast food restaraunt a few months ago. He looked good, healthy. We talked about our kids, other friends we had or hadn't kept up with.

Then he took my order.......


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

LeafHog said:


> Poli Sci? I had a really good friend in school that got a political science degree. We lost touch after graduation, then I ran into him at a fast food restaraunt a few months ago. He looked good, healthy. We talked about our kids, other friends we had or hadn't kept up with.
> 
> Then he took my order.......


That sounds about right. At least it wasn't in philosophy. Oh, did you want fries with that post?

Leafhog, aren't you up in, GASP, Walmart country? Loved Eureka Springs. Haven't seen that many old Hippies since I was in Iowa City.


----------



## LeafHog (Feb 11, 2004)

assafire said:


> Leafhog, aren't you up in, GASP, Walmart country? Loved Eureka Springs. Haven't seen that many old Hippies since I was in Iowa City.


Oh yeah!! Benton County, AR is the second fastest growing county in the nation (#1 is Las Vegas County), and it's all due to Wal-Mart. Just ridiculous growth. Real estate is ungodly expensive in and around the Rogers/Bentonville area where Wal-Mart has its corporate offices.

Eureka is a great little town, close to good trout water, and they also have a great blues festival every year. Lossa beer at the blues fest!!


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Populist, thank you, thats the word I was trying to find. To think, I have a degree in Poli Sci and this is the best I can do.


 :r You are quite welcome!

I think it is the age thing - sometimes for the life of me I can't think of a particular word!


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> :r You are quite welcome!
> 
> I think it is the age thing - sometimes for the life of me I can't think of a particular word!


Somedays I can't remember why I went from the dining room to the kitchen. I just stand there damning my failing faculties.

Just heard an interview with GM3, Steve Gardner. He was a gunner's mate on Kerry's boat, served with him the longest, 2 and ½ months. He states he was on board the SBF on Christmas, 1968?, in port. That would be the day, seared into Kerry's memory that he was in Cambodia. That was Kerry's sworn testimony before the Senate. Kerry has backed off the date seared into his memory and sworn to. He still hasn't told us what the real story is. But, indeed, there are no debatable issues remaining.

It appears Kerry has lied once. If he has lied once, I have little reason to believe that everything else he says is true. Competing versions of things don't necessarily mean Kerry is the only man of veracity. Of course, opening up his file would lay all this to rest and silence my criticism.

I understand that lying under oath may be a resume enhancer for Democrats, but there are some us who still expect the truth, not whatever words serve the moment.

Still waiting for the outrage regarding Lawyer Bauer's service with Moveon and the DNC.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Still waiting for the outrage regarding Lawyer Bauer's service with Moveon and the DNC.


Don't hold your breath!


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

summerkc said:


> How about you give your definition of tribal sovereignty means and how it should be dealt with and affected by state and federal governments? The question is not asking what the word sovereign means, he is asking how Indian tribes should be handled.
> 
> If John Kerry answered the question: "I voted for tribal sovereignty....before I voted against it"
> 
> You have to admit though, it was a damn funny answer.


Your right, its not asking that, but the fact remains that it is blatently obvious he has no clue what the word soverign means, much less tribal sovereignty. And as for me giving a definition, I'm an 18 year old just out of high school, I would hope the president knows more about such politics than me, but here goes:

The Indian tribes negotiated (for the most part in the 1800s) with the Federal government for soverign powers seperate from both the State & Fed. Gov., the extent of their soverignty being based partly on any seperate deals any of the tribes might have made with the gov. One of the problems is that some states are trying (or have tried, and been successful) to reduce the amount of soverenty that the tribes have, especially in the case of the few tribes that were not officially recognized by the Federal government. One of the other large debates is over whether the tribes have been given enough soverign power to allow them to run gambling w/o state intervention. This is a sensitive matter, as it is a huge source of income for native americans, but as far as laws are concerned, they are seeminly misusing the independence they have.

But TBH, I really haven't thought about what should be done, I'm not going into politics (and I'm not running for president,) I just remember what I was told in AP US History 2 years ago regarding Tribes. So...  :w :fu


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Your right, its not asking that, but the fact remains that it is blatently obvious he has no clue what the word soverign means, much less tribal sovereignty. And as for me giving a definition, I'm an 18 year old just out of high school, I would hope the president knows more about such politics than me, but here goes:
> 
> The Indian tribes negotiated (for the most part in the 1800s) with the Federal government for soverign powers seperate from both the State & Fed. Gov., the extent of their soverignty being based partly on any seperate deals any of the tribes might have made with the gov. One of the problems is that some states are trying (or have tried, and been successful) to reduce the amount of soverenty that the tribes have, especially in the case of the few tribes that were not officially recognized by the Federal government. One of the other large debates is over whether the tribes have been given enough soverign power to allow them to run gambling w/o state intervention. This is a sensitive matter, as it is a huge source of income for native americans, but as far as laws are concerned, they are seeminly misusing the independence they have.
> 
> But TBH, I really haven't thought about what should be done, I'm not going into politics (and I'm not running for president,) I just remember what I was told in AP US History 2 years ago regarding Tribes. So...  :w :fu


Pretty damn good! You would have gotten an A+ but you failed to cite your sources in APA or MLA format so you fail.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Still waiting for the outrage on DNC Lawyer, Bauer , and his work for the DNC and Moveon. It was fun to hear the Dems say Bauer is OK, Ginsberg bad. Feel the hypocrisy!

Tur-n--in-g ve-ry b-l--ue  ,

What happened to the Parrots and Spinners on here? How can one win giving up the fight so soon?


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Don't hold your breath, the whole ideology of the democrats is that they are above the law and are better and smarter than common folk. They don't understand hipocracy and just think that they are "right". 

Just look what happend in California with the illegal immigrant proposition that went up for vote. over 65% of people voted for it and passed it, a few days later activist judges, who were never even elected, overturned A DIRECT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE! Every person in the country should be outraged by this and should have gotten national attention, but because liberal activist judges shot it down, the liberal media failed to mention it.

It also just happend in regards to partial birth abortion, even though it went through the house, the senate, and signed by the president, a few liberal judges deem it "unconstitutional". Where in the constitution does it give a women the right to an abortion? The judge said that he came to the conclusion because it doesn't have a "health of the mother" clause, but it DOES have a "save the life of the mother" clause. With a health of the mother clause, anyone could still get a partial birth abortion, they just have to say that it will cause her mental health, or be painful. 

We need a major overhaul of the juditial system to make these judges held accountable for their actions. As of right now it is nearly impossible to get rid of an appointed federal judge.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Pretty damn good! You would have gotten an A+ but you failed to cite your sources in APA or MLA format so you fail.


crap! I knew I forgot something!!!  :al


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

assafire said:


> It appears Kerry has lied once. If he has lied once, I have little reason to believe that everything else he says is true. Competing versions of things don't necessarily mean Kerry is the only man of veracity. Of course, opening up his file would lay all this to rest and silence my criticism.


Exactly right, he has lied at least once about his service, so why believe anything else he says?

If he would agree to release his war medical records, as Bush has done, this would all be completely cleared up. I wonder why he won't do that....


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

An addition to the Swift Vets credibility....

*Admiral speaks out, disputes Kerry's account of 1st wound * 

_August 27, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST _ 
NEW YORK -- Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. said Thursday in his first on-the-record interview about the swift boat veterans dispute that "I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident that led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

Schachte, a lieutenant, said he was in command of the small boat called a Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man, whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two enlisted men who appeared at the podium with Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in Boston have asserted that they were alone in the small boat with Kerry, with no other officer present. Schachte said it "was not possible" for Kerry to have gone out alone so soon after joining the swift boat command in late November 1968.

Kerry supporters said no critics of the Democratic presidential nominee ever were aboard a boat with him in combat. Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler and says the statement that Schachte was aboard in Unfit for Command undermines that critical book's credibility.

Schachte until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question and agreed to give only two interviews. One was a television interview with Lisa Meyers of NBC News, for broadcast Thursday night. The second was a print interview with me, for publication today.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush out enemy forces so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.

Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill [Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.

The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident, Schachte said, was "about 20 years" later on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. "I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory." He said they "talked about having lunch" but never did it.

Schachte said he never has been contacted by or talked to anybody in the Bush-Cheney campaign or any Republican organization. He said he has been a political independent who votes for candidates of both parties.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

If you haven't seen this yet, recommend it.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html

The Washington Times is reporting some strange things about the Kerry medals. I'm not sure what to make of it, but looks like he may have given his Silver Star some extra juice not auth by the Navy.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> If you haven't seen this yet, recommend it.
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html
> 
> The Washington Times is reporting some strange things about the Kerry medals. I'm not sure what to make of it, but looks like he may have given his Silver Star some extra juice not auth by the Navy.


Go figure...

I guess if he was applying to be the coach at Notre Dame he would be fired.  (Remember the GT coach who padded his resume, George Leary?)


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

I have now also read info that Kerry may be backing off the first Purple Heart as self-inlicted.

Washington—In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry's military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry's first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound." 

"GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2, 1968. But in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes he and his crew, quote, "hadn't been shot at yet," unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible this first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional self-inflicted wound -- Brit." (Special Report with Brit Hume Aug.23, 2004) 

A recent television ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth featured Doctor Louis Letson who treated Kerry for his minor injury and Grant Hibbard who served as John Kerry's direct commander on the mission where he claimed his medal. Both men say Kerry did not deserve the medal given the fact that Kerry received a very minor wound requiring no more than band-aid treatment and because the wound was not a direct result of hostile fire, a requirement for a Purple Heart commendation. 

"When Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson appeared in our ad, they were attacked and vilified by the Kerry campaign but now we see news reports saying the Kerry campaign is now sheepishly acknowledging that what we said was true," said Admiral Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "John Kerry's own journal reinforces the fact that neither Kerry nor his crew had seen hostile enemy action. John Kerry's first Purple Heart medal is based on fiction." 

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is calling on the Kerry campaign to apologize to Grant Hibbard and Doctor Letson as the men did nothing more than come forward to speak the truth about the situation involving John Kerry's first Purple Heart medal. 

This is not the only incident in which Kerry campaign officials have changed their story concerning Kerry's prestigious war medals. The incident on the Bay Hap River in which Kerry received his third Purple Heart and Bronze Star has also been the subject of considerable waffling by Kerry officials. 
During the Democratic National Convention, Kerry used the Bay Hap River incident to suggest that he alone returned to rescue Jim Rassmann—a Special Forces solider—who was on Kerry's boat and was tossed into the river. Kerry described this incident to the American people as "No man left behind." 

However Kerry officials were forced to acknowledge that Kerry's boat actually left the scene when another swift boat—operating on the other side of the river—was damaged by an underwater mine. Kerry officials now admit that Kerry's boat returned after several minutes to pull Rassmann from the water while three other swift boats remained on site to render assistance to the injured crew of the one damaged boat. Campaign officials once claimed that Kerry returned to the scene under withering hostile fire to rescue Rassmann after all the other swift boats left. But other accounts from eyewitnesses of that day confirm that the other boats stayed on site and that Kerry returned to the scene, facing no enemy fire, only seconds before another swift boat was preparing to retrieve Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Its getting curioser and curiouser


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

From the Washington Post - it appears Senator Kerry makes things up to suit his purpose. I agree with the following writer's conclusion.

*Kerry's Cambodia Whopper*

_By Joshua Muravchik
Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17 _

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

_The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. _


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

flipflop said:


> Somewhere in Colorado there is a village that has its idiot.


You know, I kinda like your signature FlipFlop! :r


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> You know, I kinda like your signature FlipFlop! :r


Hehe, I've never noticed that! That is GREAT!


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

Really, I don't like either of them, but as far as I am concerned, Bush has already bit the big one and now its Kerry's turn. Besides, Bush IS stupid and I don't care if he went to Yale, daddy was in Skull and Bones, he had the hookup. And like I said, the man has shit for public speaking skills, which is kind of important as a President.


Speaking of skull and bones, have you people ever read the conspiracy theories about that thing? hahaha, how awesome. I want to be a member.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Wetterhorn said:


> You know, I kinda like your signature FlipFlop! :r


Thank you Wetterhorn. 

You too summerkc.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Really, I don't like either of them, but as far as I am concerned, Bush has already bit the big one and now its Kerry's turn. Besides, Bush IS stupid and I don't care if he went to Yale, daddy was in Skull and Bones, he had the hookup. And like I said, the man has shit for public speaking skills, which is kind of important as a President.
> 
> Speaking of skull and bones, have you people ever read the conspiracy theories about that thing? hahaha, how awesome. I want to be a member.


Yeah, I agree. If your connected right, you don't even have to show up at Yale, they just give the grades away.

In fact, lets extend that logic. Many of the men who run Wall Street were educated at Yale. They are the children and grand-children of the men who pioneered and founded many of the brokers and big banks. As they are the definition of the truly connected, we may assume they all skated through Yale as the ability to make millions and billions in their respective businesses is passed genetically, no real need for an education. Yale is just a right of passage.

So, its nice to know that a diploma from Yale carries no weight. Only the scholarship students have to show up. But, because these matriculates aren't connected, these non-idiots can only hope to work for the "no-show" idiots. Now that's a conspiracy. And I believe GW attended when dad was a mere Congressman, not a very exclusive club to motivate Yale to slide the kid through. I'm sure Yale thanks you for denigrating their school and over one-hundred year history.

Oh, and as Bush is an Idiot, who did run that ball team? Who really ran Texas when he was Gov.? Or did he only become an idiot after the 2000 election?


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

I said his dad was in Skull and Bones, not that every person ever to have connections (or every person not on a scholarship) that went/goes/will go to Yale just gets a free diploma. I could write more, but your post isn't really worth it. Congratulations on writing the most pointless post in the thread.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Congratulations on writing the most pointless post in the thread.


IMNSHO.... you and a few others are still ahead on that point.

Of course, what do I know. I've not the advantage of being a student at the University of Michigan who knows, for sure, as you say, _"Bush IS stupid..._.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

flipflop said:


> IMNSHO.... you and a few others are still ahead on that point.
> 
> Of course, what do I know. I've not the advantage of being a student at the University of Michigan who knows, for sure, as you say, _"Bush IS stupid..._.


Bush is stupid, that is my opinion. And in what post did I try and raise myself above others by saying I am going to U of M? I tried looking for the post where I mentioned U of M, but haven't found it yet.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

Quixote said:


> So that I may judge your political acumen...
> 
> Did you win?
> 
> -Q


I noticed this post looking for the one where I mentioned U of M and yes, I did win my 5th grade election, causing the over-achiever girl who was one of my opponents, and her younger brother to despise me forever. :w


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

NewGeneration85 said:


> Bush is stupid, that is my opinion.


Which you are entitled to hold forth.

However, I've always been of the opinion that no one can get elected POTUS if they are stupid. The House of Representatives? Yes. 



NewGeneration85 said:


> And in what post did I try and raise myself above others by saying I am going to U of M? I tried looking for the post where I mentioned U of M, but haven't found it yet.


Didn't say you tried to raise yourself above others. I was making an observation based on my opinion.

But you ARE a student at U of M. Correct?


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

flipflop said:


> Didn't say you tried to raise yourself above others. I was making an observation based on my opinion.
> 
> But you ARE a student at U of M. Correct?


It just seemed that was what you were getting at with the way you worded it, and yea, I move into my dorm on wednesday and start after Labor Day, but where the heck did I talk about it? I've looked through this entire thread and didn't find it. I must have missed it. :c

BTW, I do agree on a lot of points people have made about Kerry. His purple hearts obviously didn't come from any horrible wounds. He really needed to find something better to talk about than him being in Vietnam. It is ok to use that to some extent, but damn, it shouldn't be the main issue being discussed. Changing your views on a topic because you have learned more about it and made a new, more informed decision is ok, but Kerry changes his mind way too much. And yes, the resemblence to Frankenstein is funny.

Bush on the other hand is a bad public speaker, went into Iraq under false pretences, is not of the intelligence I would hope a President would have, and never changes his views, which in my opinion is as bad as changing them too much. And as for resemblence, Bush resembles a monkey, so that really isn't any better than Frankenstein. 

Also, do you all remember when Bush was making the jokes about not finding any WMD in Iraq? That he joked about the reason he sent troops over there, and the reason we have lost/are losing the lives of American troops is not right.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

NewGeneration85 said:


> ...but where the heck did I talk about it? I've looked through this entire thread and didn't find it. :c


Part of the learning experience is delving into other avenues Grasshopper. 



NewGeneration85 said:


> Bush on the other hand is a bad public speaker...


He's not a good public speaker. Not a high priority on my list. WHAT a person says is far more important than HOW they say it. BTW: Some of the greatest orators have been tyrants; Hitler, Mussolini, etc.



NewGeneration85 said:


> ... went into Iraq under false pretences, is not of the intelligence I would hope a President would have...


Incorrect on the false pretences if you're meaning is he mislead us. He went in with the intelligence given to him and it pointed to WMDs. BTW: Do some research and you'll find that many other nations felt that intelligence (gathered by those nations) agreed; faulty as it was.



NewGeneration85 said:


> and never changes his views...


Neither did Ghandi or MLK Jr. And they were correct in their views. No need to change if you're right to begin with. (BTW: Bush has changed his views on numerous issues. Again, some research on your part is in order.)



NewGeneration85 said:


> Also, do you all remember when Bush was making the jokes about not finding any WMD in Iraq? That he joked about the reason he sent troops over there, and the reason we have lost/are losing the lives of American troops is not right.


What specifically are you referring to?


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> I said his dad was in Skull and Bones, not that every person ever to have connections (or every person not on a scholarship) that went/goes/will go to Yale just gets a free diploma. I could write more, but your post isn't really worth it. Congratulations on writing the most pointless post in the thread.


Pointless? You make an unsubstaniated claim that the Pres is dumb, the fix was in. If it is true in one case, it would have to be true in others, unless Bush is in a vacuum.

Also, you failed to respond to just exactly when he became an idiot. He was managing partner of a pro ball team. I doubt the other wealthy partners put up 10s of millions to let an idiot run the enterprise. And you also imply the people of Texas are stupid because they elected Bush to governor twice. All those people insulted without anything more than your opinion.

If you are issuing your opinion, that's fine. Don't demean other people and instituions in the effort to make your specious claim(s) valid. And don't complain if you are challenged when you do.

But I will grant you the Skull & Bones thing, like Hasty Pudding, if one gets in, the access to power is nearly assured. Old school tie kinda thing.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

flipflop said:


> What specifically are you referring to?


He's referring to that paragon of truth and honesty, Mike Moore. It was a segment, (can you say cut & paste?), of the dreckumentary.

Saw it, my review: I gave it one finger.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

The Chicago Sun Times drils down hard for the truth...

Kerry Stonewalling on Medals Mystery

Kerry campaign officials are refusing to answer questions about discrepancies in the military records posted to the presidential candidate's campaign Web site after Navy officials and outside experts challenged the authenticity of some of Kerry's decorations.

Chicago Sun-Times reporter Thomas Lipscomb said Sunday that he's tried to reach Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan 10 times about the controversy - all without response. 
"I [also] tried to get John Hurley, head of Veterans for Kerry, to give me reaction," Lipscomb told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday. But he wouldn't respond either.

On Friday, Lipscomb reported that former Navy Secretary John Lehman is challenging citations posted to Kerry's campaign Web site that include his signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," Lehman said.

B.G. Burkett, author of the definitive book on fraudulent medals, "Stolen Valor," told Lipscomb there's a problem with the citation for Kerry's "Silver Star with Combat V."

"I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he told Lipscomb.

Several of the military records that appear on Kerry's Web site "appear to be fraudulent, according to U.S. Navy standards," the Sun-Times reporter told Malzberg.

"The Navy is now saying Kerry's records are incorrect," he added. "He's not entitled to this award. He's not entitled to that award. This is a new ballgame."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

assafire said:


> He was managing partner of a pro ball team. I doubt the other wealthy partners put up 10s of millions to let an idiot run the enterprise.


"...the bringing together of the buying group was the result of Richard Rainwater, Rusty Rose, Dr. Bobby Brown and the commissioner."

Peter Uberoth, Commissioner of MLB at the time referring to the purchase of the Texas Rangers from Chiles.

So according to the man who approved the purchase, and was the MLB Commissioner, Bush wasn't the main man to setup the buyer group (though yes, he had his part). Also, the key buyer, Rainwater, only agreed to put in money if his associate Rusty Rose was made co-manager with Bush.

Not to mention there has been a lot of talk (not that I necessarily beieve it) that Bush "attempted to blackmail the city of Arlington into paying for a new stadium through sales tax increase by threatening to take the team elsewhere."

And I never insulted all of texas, only ~52.8% of Texas voted for him over his opponent the first time around (I don't know about the second) and even then, I never made any inclination they were stupid, but in my opinion they made a poor choice.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Pointless? You make an unsubstaniated claim that the Pres is dumb, the fix was in. If it is true in one case, it would have to be true in others, unless Bush is in a vacuum.
> 
> Also, you failed to respond to just exactly when he became an idiot. He was managing partner of a pro ball team. I doubt the other wealthy partners put up 10s of millions to let an idiot run the enterprise. And you also imply the people of Texas are stupid because they elected Bush to governor twice. All those people insulted without anything more than your opinion.
> 
> ...


Well said, my friend!

The _"old boy"_ network is alive and well in politics, no question about it. This point goes for both parties - it is full of old money and powerful familes. President Bush comes from a political dynasty that makes the doors open much easier. Senator Kerry is unbelievably wealthy and comes from an old New England family with connections. One doesn't necessarily have to be from this genre to get elected to a high office, but it does truly help.

As for President Bush being an _"idiot," _ well I don't know too many US Air Force pilots that are stupid and George W. Bush was a pilot. Also, look at the 2000 Presidential debates - President Bush defeated Vice President Gore in these debates, without question. If President Bush is so stupid, how did he defeat an Ivy League educated individual who served in the US Senate and as the Vice President?

Hmmm...... Sounds like President Bush isn't so stupid after all.

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> "...the bringing together of the buying group was the result of Richard Rainwater, Rusty Rose, Dr. Bobby Brown and the commissioner."
> 
> Peter Uberoth, Commissioner of MLB at the time referring to the purchase of the Texas Rangers from Chiles.
> 
> ...


Never said he put the group together, only he was the managing partner, a legal term for who gets the bulk of the liability and runs the partnership day to day. I assume he got it because of his political influence possibilities, the rich get many more opportunities than you or I, generally based on position, wealth, or ability. Clinton is an anomoly as he talked and worked his way in. Land of opportunity is no joke here.

Ok, you don't owe nearly so many apologies. 

Anyway, Kerry simply can't win. Hillary ain't waitin' to 2012. Kerry, as nominal head of the party should be able to place his man in the leadership of the DNC. Only Bill CLinton prevents it, McAuliffe being his man. That's one reason they killed Dean, he also dislikes McAuliffe and the Clintons.

Hilly was just turned loose in NYC over the weekend as part of the Kerry truth squad. All against the campaign's wishes. When did a party apparatus last defy the candidate's wishes?

Why do I mention this without proper segue? Because most of this debate is moot, if my thesis holds.

If you really want to see the conspiracy of the wealthy, check out "Bohemian Grove" sometime. A nice little spot on the Cal. coast where the rich, party doesn't matter, meet to discuss what the issues are and what to do about them. Not that they can actually do anything, but I'm betting they get their way more often than I. I'm not sure if that will be on the net, I'll check. Use to be a very big thing.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

flipflop said:


> Part of the learning experience is delving into other avenues Grasshopper.
> 
> He's not a good public speaker. Not a high priority on my list. WHAT a person says is far more important than HOW they say it. BTW: Some of the greatest orators have been tyrants; Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
> 
> ...


Nice post FlipFlop! Excellent points!!!!

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Way off topic, just remembered a story of how the rich are different than us.

Wetterhorn, I assume you're familiar with Pak-Mail? I use to own one in Illinois. One of my clients manged the family trusts for the John Deere family heirs.

They came in one day with a styrofoam cooler full of Hershy Bars, M&Ms, Kit Kat, etc. "Here, the family is having a meeting in Tahoe. They need this by tommorrow." I mean this is standard "Kwickie Mart" stuff. $75 to UPS overnight early AM delivery express.

I was dumbfounded that they couldn't send a servant out for it. But, good for me.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

flipflop said:


> Part of the learning experience is delving into other avenues Grasshopper.
> 
> He's not a good public speaker. Not a high priority on my list. WHAT a person says is far more important than HOW they say it. BTW: Some of the greatest orators have been tyrants; Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
> 
> ...


One should also be aware that Clinton and Kerry have said essentially the same thing as Bush inre WMD in Iraq. If Bush is lying, so are they. If they are truthful, so is Bush.

Take your pick.


----------



## NewGeneration85 (Jul 12, 2004)

assafire said:


> He's referring to that paragon of truth and honesty, Mike Moore. It was a segment, (can you say cut & paste?), of the dreckumentary.
> 
> Saw it, my review: I gave it one finger.


It was on NBC, I don't really care for Michael Moore.

How can you not say public speaking is important, the ability to motivate others, to get them to believe in you/your ideas is important to say the least.

And yes, some of the greatest orators have been tyrants, because they had the ability to move the public in such a way to get them to do whatever they pleased, Hitler being a great example. Now if only they had used that talent for good...

As for Iraq, North Korea was a greater thread in the WMD department. Heck, they even admitted they had a weapons program in 2002, which violated an agreement they had signed with the US that froze their weapons program, they later announced they were going to kick out the inspectors that monitored their compliance with this agreement, and they withdrew from the NPT. Plus NK has done MUCH worse things to their people than Saddam. So why didn't Bush go after the country that admitted to having a nuke program running, which was a violation of an agreement with the US, and instead go after Iraq, which there was nowhere near the amount of evidence for any nuke or other wmd program existing?

As for Kerry saying he would have still gone to war, even though before he wouldn't have, well, like you say, he flip flops.

As for Clinton...

"Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it."

From an article titled "Bill Clinton Defends Bush on Iraq"

Btw flip, you looked at my profile didn't you?  I swear I remember mentioning it in a post in this thread, but it looks like I just mentioned that I was just out of high school.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

NewGeneration85 said:


> As for Iraq, North Korea was a greater thread in the WMD department. Heck, they even admitted they had a weapons program in 2002, which violated an agreement they had signed with the US that froze their weapons program, they later announced they were going to kick out the inspectors that monitored their compliance with this agreement, and they withdrew from the NPT. Plus NK has done MUCH worse things to their people than Saddam. So why didn't Bush go after the country that admitted to having a nuke program running, which was a violation of an agreement with the US, and instead go after Iraq, which there was nowhere near the amount of evidence for any nuke or other wmd program existing?


If you think the left is bitching about losing lives in Iraq (about a 1000 so far) there would be a sh*tstorm if we attacked North Korea. Their army is huge (like in the millions of soldiers) and they have massive amounts of artillery, tanks, and missles. I would guess we could easily lose 20,000 men, and for the South Koreans it would be in the 100,000 civilian dead range. This would be nothing like Iraq where we just go in and take the country, this would be another Vietnam.

That is why we are taking more time with Korean, especially because they have never harbored terrorists, funded suicide bombers families, and been linked to Al Quida


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

summerkc said:


> If you think the left is bitching about losing lives in Iraq (about a 1000 so far) there would be a sh*tstorm if we attacked North Korea. Their army is huge (like in the millions of soldiers) and they have massive amounts of artillery, tanks, and missles. I would guess we could easily lose 20,000 men, and for the South Koreans it would be in the 100,000 civilian dead range. This would be nothing like Iraq where we just go in and take the country, this would be another Vietnam.
> 
> That is why we are taking more time with Korean, especially because they have never harbored terrorists, funded suicide bombers families, and been linked to Al Quida


North Korea would be strategically useless to us. Sure, it would be nice to have pot belly Kim laying peacefully in a bamboo box, but its just not important right now. The immediate area around N. Korea is improving dramatically. China is abandoning its Kerry-esque policies and is becoming a strong capitalist nation. With capitalism comes freedom, no two ways about it. Russia is following suit and S Korea is doing extremely well. With the money and power behind S Korea and China, N Korea would not attack (assuming some mental stability in their leadership).

Iraq on the other hand is in the hottest part of hell. They have terrorists, so we attack, but more importantly they were the easiest and most "guilty" nation in the middle east. Iraq has abused its people and the people of neighboring countries for years and Saddam has tried his best to great weapons of mass destruction, including a giant cannon capable of reaching Israel&#8230;World War III (I believe it was made in Germany too). Iraq has long been a pain in the world's ass, and we have wisely used this opportunity to bring new capitalistic and free leadership to the middle east. As Iraq redevelops private industry, it will have the ability to police itself and its area, because it too will become a target of terrorists. We will have America Jr. in the middle east. Now, we will have two nations, on Jew and one Arab that owe their existence and economic success to America. Sure will make peace a lot easier don't you think?

WMD had nothing to do with the move to invade. They were just a sprinkle on the icing on the cake. We had to kill to secure peace. Most unfortunate, but most true.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

summerkc said:


> If you think the left is bitching about losing lives in Iraq (about a 1000 so far) there would be a sh*tstorm if we attacked North Korea.


I think everybody is upset about the loss of life in Iraq. I've voted Republican and I'm upset about the loss of life in Iraqi soil.

Hopefully nobody takes your statement wrong. I didn't, but it could be construed to mean something you may not want it to mean.

Nobody here is going to get an Ed/Op job anytime soon. I consider myself a HACK writer with a HACK opinion......Hey, maybe I got this Hack from cigars  !

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> I think everybody is upset about the loss of life in Iraq. I've voted Republican and I'm upset about the loss of life in Iraqi soil.
> 
> Hopefully nobody takes your statement wrong. I didn't, but it could be construed to mean something you may not want it to mean.
> 
> ...


Well of course, but the problem is the left says they died for lies and did not die for a good cause.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

NewGeneration85 said:


> How can you not say public speaking is important, the ability to motivate others, to get them to believe in you/your ideas is important to say the least.


Back track and you'll see that I did NOT say it was unimportant. I said it was not high on my priority list and that WHAT is said is more important than HOW it is said. (The Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches ever delivered. Yet historians tell us that Lincoln was not a great public speaker in that his voice was not strong and often cracked. Which means Lincoln would have a difficult, if not impossible, task getting elected in today's world of tv, radio and soundbites.)



NewGeneration85 said:


> And yes, some of the greatest orators have been tyrants, because they had the ability to move the public in such a way to get them to do whatever they pleased, Hitler being a great example. Now if only they had used that talent for good...


And IF the Quenn of England had balls, she'd be the King of England. 



NewGeneration85 said:


> As for Iraq, North Korea was a greater thread in the WMD department. Heck, they even admitted they had a weapons program in 2002, which violated an agreement they had signed with the US that froze their weapons program, they later announced they were going to kick out the inspectors that monitored their compliance with this agreement, and they withdrew from the NPT. Plus NK has done MUCH worse things to their people than Saddam. So why didn't Bush go after the country that admitted to having a nuke program running, which was a violation of an agreement with the US, and instead go after Iraq, which there was nowhere near the amount of evidence for any nuke or other wmd program existing?


Apples and oranges. Diffferent parts of the world; no resources (oil) to effect the world's economy; hemmed in by China, SK and Japan. Etc. Etc. China will be the one who reins in (or disposes of) NK in the long run. They have far too much to lose.



NewGeneration85 said:


> Btw flip, you looked at my profile didn't you?  I swear I remember mentioning it in a post in this thread, but it looks like I just mentioned that I was just out of high school.


See what can happen when you start to THINK rather than just FEEL.  Keep it up and you just might make it out of Ann Arbor without being "infected" with "leftwingitis." :r


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Agreed, China will and is keeping NK under pressure. They, China, do have way too much to lose, and we, the US, owe them soooo much $$$. I mean the boycott of Chinese made things at KMart to protest their holding the spy plane taught them much. They now understand they can simply buy the place, if they bide their time. 

"Capitalists will hang themselves with the very rope thay make" K Marx.

Iran is the gathering storm. They have nukes and an affinity for terrorists. Now, what to do about it. That is the next great debate. If preemptionis the answer, does anyone have the political will to act?


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

assafire said:


> Iran is the gathering storm. They have nukes and an affinity for terrorists. Now, what to do about it. That is the next great debate. If preemptionis the answer, does anyone have the political will to act?


We're not sure if they have an nukes yet. I hope not. Iran is a powder keg ready to explode. The younger people are mostly fed up with the mullah's heavy-handed theocracy. All the dissidents need is a nudge (and some clandestine support) to start a civil war. It is a country mostly surrounded by US military and governments cooperating with us. (Look at a map.) And I'll bet the mortgage there is a lot going on under the table and behind the scenes to give that nudge in the near future.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Interesting article showing the eb and flow of the Presidential campaign.

*Democratic strategists say Bush has made 'unmistakable' gains in August *

_By Will Lester
ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:52 p.m. August 30, 2004_

NEW YORK - President Bush has gained ground on Democrat John Kerry in the month of August because of "relatively small but unmistakable" shifts in the political environment, Democratic strategists said in a memo released Monday.

The polling memo by Democracy Corps, a group led by pollster Stan Greenberg and strategist James Carville, said the subtle gains by Bush have knotted the race again after Kerry had a slight advantage after the Democratic National Convention in late July.

Bush lauds economic gains as he campaigns in New Hampshire, Michigan 
Edwards accuses Bush of failed leadership as GOP officials gather in New York.

"There is no doubt that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (attacking Kerry's Vietnam service) have had an impact on the race," according to the Democracy Corps memo. Those attacks combined with the Summer Olympics have combined to "shift the focus away from Iraq and worrisome economic trends."

The Democracy Corps analysis averaged numerous national and state polls to come up with its assessment that Bush is doing slightly better against Kerry, a judgment supported more by internal measures such as issues and candidate qualities.

An ABC News-Washington Post poll released Monday supported the Democracy Corps findings. Bush and Kerry were tied at 48 percent apiece while independent Ralph Nader was backed by 1 percent among likely voters. They are also tied among registered voters, a larger group.

Kerry has lost ground on several measures in the ABC-Post poll such as voter enthusiasm for his candidacy, his personal popularity and his ratings on such issues as education, the economy, Iraq and terrorism. Bush has gained trust on these issues during that time.

The ABC News-Post poll was taken Aug. 26-29 of 945 registered voters has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, slightly higher for likely voters.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Thought Dr. Sowell made some good points in the following article...

*Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam: Part III*
_Thomas Sowell

August 26, 2004 _

Despite attempts to depict criticisms of John Kerry by the Vietnam Veterans for Truth as something whose sudden appearance during this election year can only be explained by a conspiracy orchestrated by the Bush White House, this is just the latest in Vietnam veterans' counter-attacks against John Kerry's sweeping depictions of them as wholesale war criminals, decades ago.

John O'Neill, whose recent book "Unfit for Command" is the centerpiece of the current criticisms of Kerry, began criticizing and debating John Kerry decades ago. Their best known confrontation was on the Dick Cavett show back in 1971.

If you get a chance to see re-runs of that debate, it is well worth watching. At the heart of the issues between the two men were Kerry's widely publicized charges that Americans fighting in Vietnam committed atrocities not only wholesale and on a daily basis, but that those atrocities were both condoned and directed by those at the highest levels of command.

O'Neill repeatedly attempted to get Kerry to cite any evidence for these sweeping and damning charges -- and Kerry repeatedly sidestepped those questions and went off to discuss what he chose to define as the "real" issues. Kerry had that suave, smug, and condescending air that too often passes for intelligence and knowledge.

Much the same air was apparent in Dick Cavett's question to both men as to whether they believed the "cliche" that there would be a "blood bath" if and when the Communists took over in Vietnam. Kerry downplayed that possibility.

However chic it was among the intelligentsia to dismiss the prospect of a Communist bloodbath as a mere "cliche" in 1971, more than a million Vietnamese fled for their lives when the Communists took over. In their desperation, these refugees put themselves and their children on boats that were never meant for the high seas and about one-fourth of them died, either from drowning or from pirates who terrorized, robbed, raped, and slaughtered them.

Meanwhile, back in Vietnam, the Communists created precisely the kind of bloodbath that anyone outside of the intelligentsia could have predicted. In Cambodia, the Communists killed at least one-fifth of the entire population. Against the background of that carnage, the smug condescension of Cavett and Kerry now look obscene.

There is no sign that John Kerry and those who think like him have learned anything from having been so tragically wrong about the Communists, including Vietnamese dictator Ho Chi Minh, whom Kerry likened to George Washington.

Long before Senator Kerry, or even before there were Communists, the political left consistently avoided facing the brutal fact of deliberate evil that can only be defeated by force. Edmund Burke recognized their reluctance to confront evil back in the 18th century, when he said: "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men."

Yet even in our own times there have been those who recoiled when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and when George W. Bush spoke of an "axis of evil" consisting of recklessly belligerent Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Perhaps the most deadly menace in our history, a nuclear-armed North Korea, is headlined in the New York Times as "reaching out to the world" and the world as "reaching back," leaving the United States "isolated" in its inexplicable hostility. Not since The Times of London adopted a see-no-evil attitude toward Hitler in the 1930s has a major newspaper been so tragically blind.

Senator Kerry has argued for a more "nuanced" approach to foreign policy and a more "sensitive" way of fighting international terrorism. People who cannot make hard choices often talk about complexity and nuance, about gray areas and twilight issues.

There are of course gray areas. But not all areas are gray. And not all 24 hours of the day are twilight.

There is of course complexity. But trying to square the circle is not complex. It is impossible.

A President of the United States should know all sides of an issue. But he cannot be on all sides of an issue. He cannot keep flip-flopping like John Kerry.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Kerry was the anti-war candidate when he commenced his campaign, now he is the war candidate.

I think a case can be made that Kerry has always had a kind of pro-Communist bent or at least a lack of interest in opposing them. That's how he came to poo-poo any idea of a Communist blood bath in Vietnam. He believed them when they said so. Never mind history, Castro, Stalin.

He opposed Reagan on those votes that ultimately splintered the Soviet Union. He supported Dan Ortega, dictator of Nicarauga, until the people there, allowed to vote through help from Reagan, got rid of him. Famous picture of Kerry and Harkin meeting Ortega, promising him they'd obstruct efforts to remove him.

I still have no reason to believe he has changed his core, if he has one. The Dems were quite distressed Monday night when Rudy pointed out his constant flip-flopping.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

That was quite an update. So, there is only one way the USofA can accomplish this task, the PNAC agenda, and that would be to start up a draft. Because it will involve a protracted war. The USofA will invoke the draft, agree or disagree?

Here is a question I pose to you all, there is serious evidence that NK has Nuclear Missile ability to reach US soil today. My question, which I promise isn't a setup or trick, do you think NK has this capibility?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> That was quite an update. So, there is only one way the USofA can accomplish this task, the PNAC agenda, and that would be to start up a draft. Because it will involve a protracted war. The USofA will invoke the draft, agree or disagree?
> 
> Here is a question I pose to you all, there is serious evidence that NK has Nuclear Missile ability to reach US soil today. My question, which I promise isn't a setup or trick, do you think NK has this capibility?


I disagree with the idea the US will invoke a draft to counter North Korea. I think the US will use it's Asian allies and I don't think China will allow North Korea to press the US to hard.

I do believe that North Korea has the capibility to launch a nuke that would hit the western US. I think the lack of monitoring and the spurious treaty Clinton signed with North Korea allowed them to greatly enhance their technology. Remember when North Korea launched the missle over Japan?


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

I think I should reword the first part of my queer eye...er query for the cigar guy.

I was actually referring to the idea of now going into Iran, which is being discussed in some of the above threads. That is part of what many believe will be the stabilization of the Middle East, for "Lasting Gains" as it is called by the conservative PNAC org. They have a template for what is happening today and it started during the Clinton years. Good, Bad, or indifferent...I don't care. A lot of folks in power today subscribed to the PNAC ideologies.

Sorry about the way I worded the other post.

In order to achieve the stabilization of the Middle East I think the USofA will invoke the draft.

NK has no "Lasting Gains" for the US. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Why is it no one in the major media outlets ever asks Kerry to explain Cambodia and his several versions of that time?

Heard Peter Jennings asked that question on WLS-AM(Chicago), he launched into standard Dem talking points and seemed defensive. Odd for a neutral observer and reporter of the news.

And they wonder why audience share is down. If Kerry was a Repub, we would have had 40 stories above the fold in the NY Times alone.

Here's an interesting site:

http://communistsforkerry.com/


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

assafire said:


> Here's an interesting site:
> 
> http://communistsforkerry.com/


unless Kerry has something to do with this site, who really gives a crap??


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Here's an interesting site:
> 
> http://communistsforkerry.com/


I thought the site was really funny!!!!! Thanks for sharing!

:r


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

i will definitely agree that it is good for a few laughs. :r


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> i will definitely agree that it is good for a few laughs. :r


 Thats all I meant. A moment of levity before rejoining the battle. 

And, if you click on the "Secret Police" link, it calls up the ACLU site. I found it pretty clever and some ofthe posts left find some people actually taking it seriously.


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

people are taking it seriously because you are tacking the link onto the end of serious posts, rather than posting it on it's own.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Man, I need to get into politics if this is the reward!!!! 

*Convention notebook: Cigars with Rudy... *

_September 01. 2004 9:52AM _

New Hampshire Senate President Tom Eaton and Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg were on their way to a reception for U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass on Monday night at 666 Fifth Avenue when they saw former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani entering the same building. He was on his way to the late-night cigar party he was hosting in the Grand Havana Room. They introduced themselves and followed Giuliani's entourage to the 39th floor.

It was way after midnight, and Eaton and Clegg had already missed Bass, so. . . . Before they knew it, they were chilling at one of the most exclusive parties of the evening, smoking cigars from Giuliani's private humidor.

Eaton and Clegg also joined Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former governor John H. Sununu at a small dinner at BLT Steak.

Eaton said Perry (1) knew New Hampshire Agriculture Commissioner Steve Taylor from his days as Taylor's Texan counterpart, (2) was hilarious and (3) would be "a very attractive candidate if he ever ran for higher office."

- Lisa Wangsness


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

assafire said:


> Thats all I meant. A moment of levity before rejoining the battle.
> 
> And, if you click on the "Secret Police" link, it calls up the ACLU site. I found it pretty clever and some ofthe posts left find some people actually taking it seriously.


Well, people here aren't the only ones taking it seriously - this is a line from the Washington Post, August 30 edition: "And Kerry might prefer to eschew the four-member "Communists for Kerry" contingent, whose placards advocated a "France First!" foreign policy."

:r


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

assafire said:


> Here's an interesting site:
> 
> http://communistsforkerry.com/


 :r

I wouldnt worry about anyone taking it seriously. If an average person reads through 2% of it, they understand its a joke. If someone takes it seriously, chances are good they will Darwinize themselves out of the picture before anyone even notices.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Well, people here aren't the only ones taking it seriously - this is a line from the Washington Post, August 30 edition: "And Kerry might prefer to eschew the four-member "Communists for Kerry" contingent, whose placards advocated a "France First!" foreign policy."
> 
> :r


I don't know how this thread has gone so far a field, but that is funny.

If anyone didn't see Zell Miller's speech at the convention. he nicely framed the differences in the parties of today and certainly some of the major issues. I encourage everyone to read a transcript, it was like nothing I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I thought Senator Miller and Vice-President Cheney's addresses were excellent, clearly defining the differences in the candidates and agendas.

:u


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

I didn't see much of CP Cheney's, but Sen. Miller's was great.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

*Here is the transcript of Zell Millers speech:*

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Thanks for posting the transcript. 

Excellent speech.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Editorial from the Wall Street Journal concerning President Bush's term in office...

*Bush's Capital * 
_A consequential presidency is always "polarizing." _

Thursday, September 2, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Journalists like to complain, usually with cause, that politicians are slaves to the polls and rarely take a risk. So it is no small irony that the President who takes the stage tonight in New York City stands accused of taking too many risks.

Mr. Bush is assailed for pursuing tax cuts, amid recession and war, that have brought back the deficit. He is blamed for invading Iraq instead of concentrating on al Qaeda. He has also--pick your favorite sin of recklessness--upset our venerable global alliances, dumped the sainted ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol, opened Medicare to market competition, demanded too much from public schools, and loosened restraints on the Justice Department and FBI.

Merely to cite this list is to show how tumultuous the past four years have been. Mr. Bush has run neither the "in-box Presidency" of his father, nor pursued the mini-me agenda of Dick Morris and Bill Clinton. Whatever political capital he has won or been offered by events, he has turned around and spent it to pursue his goals. Agree with his priorities or not, no one can claim that he lacks what the Federalist Papers hailed as "energy in the executive."

Part of the political peril in this is that four years is often too short a time to see how these decisions turn out. That is especially true on national security, where in the wake of 9/11 Mr. Bush has set an entirely new strategy to combat terrorism and "transform" the Middle East. These are long-run bets, much as the "containment" strategy begun by Harry Truman took 40 years to prevail against Communism.

But already the ledger shows more assets than liabilities. Two regimes that were threats to America have been toppled. A third, Libya, turned state's evidence against its own nuclear program amid Saddam's fall. Some want us to believe that Moammar Ghadafi saw this light on his own, but his timing says otherwise. Pakistan, which once protected the Taliban, is now a key ally and its A.Q. Khan nuclear network has been rolled up.

Yes, Mr. Bush underestimated the Iraq insurgency, among other post-invasion mistakes. It's worth recalling, however, that those who opposed the war warned instead of disasters that did not happen--a refugee exodus, uprisings in the Arab street, environmental catastrophe, civil war. While civil war is still possible, the single most important change in Iraq is that all but the bitter-end Baathists now support free elections and representative government. If this nation-building succeeds, the U.S. will have an ally in the heart of the Mideast and the Arab Muslim world.

Surely the easier political choice for Mr. Bush was to stop after toppling the Taliban, delaying any Iraq decision until safely re-elected. But assessing the risks and concluding that they can't wait is what we pay Presidents to do. The far greater temptation--and in a world of WMD, the far greater risk--is to find some excuse never to act. This was the Clinton pattern, and John Kerry's record suggests it would also be his.

The other popular criticisms of Mr. Bush's foreign policy seem to us wildly overdrawn. Kyoto was fatally flawed and didn't include the developing world (China). The declining Franco-German half of Europe would be reluctant to help the U.S. no matter who was President. Far from being a "unilateral cowboy," Mr. Bush ended the archaic ABM Treaty with the full agreement of Russia. If anything, on Iran and North Korea he has deferred too much to allies and their diplomatic imperatives. A second term would require greater resolve.

On the domestic side, we wrote yesterday about the economic success of his tax cutting. But we'd add that this required him to take the additional political risk of shaking up his economic team and firing his disloyal and ineffective Treasury Secretary. This is something his father was never willing to do, but it was clearly the right call and has helped him avoid an even deeper post-9/11 recession.

If only Mr. Bush had been as forceful in settling disputes among his national security team. A blood feud--the CIA and State versus the Pentagon--meant that many vital decisions on Iraq were split down the middle or left to fester. Among other things, these fights hindered the prewar recruitment of Iraqi allies and lengthened the postwar occupation. We hope Mr. Bush has learned from the mistake of appointing a Secretary of State who can't be fired no matter how much his diplomats undermine White House policy.

In other areas, too, we wish Mr. Bush had been bolder. His failure to veto a single bill has only encouraged Congressional spendthrifts. On Medicare, he settled too easily for too little reform, saddling taxpayers with untold billions in future liabilities. Even here, however, Mr. Bush has planted the seeds of a revolution in consumer-driven health care by introducing health savings accounts. The rub is that he will need a second term to ensure their survival and growth, because Mr. Kerry would kill them in the cradle. He will also need a second term to fulfill his 2000 promise to reform Social Security, as we hear he will again pledge to do this evening.

One thing that hasn't surprised us is the charge that Mr. Bush is "polarizing." We doubt this has much to do with his Texas style. The truth is that every President who tries to do large things is controversial. And Mr. Bush represents a GOP vanguard that has displaced liberal Democrats who had dominated Washington for generations; no wonder his opponents are bitter. They understand that a second Bush term could well alter the country's political landscape for a generation.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

It is amazing how the press and liberals are demonizing Senetor Zell Miller for his excellent speech last night. They hailed that other senetor when he switched sides from republican to democrat. They said he was a free thinker and didn't conform to normal partisan politics. 

After Zell got done they said he was hatefull and senile and had lost his mind.

If I've said it once, I'll say it a thousand times: hypocrites.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Kerry is totally screwed now:

_Navy Challenging Kerry's Medals

The United States Navy is challenging the authenticity of Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War medals, in a development that could prove to be the most damaging yet to the embattled Democrat's presidential campaign.

A Navy spokesman is calling Kerry's Silver Star citation with Combat V "incorrect" as it appears on his campaign Web site, explaining in an interview with Chicago Sun-Times reporter Thomas Lipscomb that the Navy has never issued a Combat V at any time for the Silver Star.

The Navy also is questioning the listing on Kerry's Web site of four bronze campaign stars for his service in Vietnam. The official naval record credits Kerry with just two Vietnam campaigns.

"That is sufficient for the wearing of the Vietnam Service Medal for one campaign bearing one campaign star for the additional campaign - not four," reports Lipscomb in today's New York Sun.

Kerry's campaign has repeatedly cited the Navy as the ultimate authority on the candidate's war record, saying the Navy wouldn't have awarded him medals he didn't deserve.

But with the Navy now publicly challenging Kerry's decorations, that defense has been rendered inoperative.

Noting that Kerry has refused to authorize the release of his full military records, the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch called on Kerry this week to remove any questionable citations from his Web site pending a formal investigation by the Navy.

"It is to your best interest to have your record in good order," Gen. Thomas Wilkerson, the president of the U.S. Naval Institute, told Lipscomb. "If it is wrong, you are accountable. And if you use it to advance your career, it is even more important."_ -Newsmax


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Kerry is totally screwed now:
> 
> _Navy Challenging Kerry's Medals
> 
> ...


Uh-Oh!!


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/blpresidentialknockout.htm


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

This was an exchange between Senator Zell Miller and Chris Matthews and I thought this was pretty funny.... :r 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then there was this hilarious postspeech exchange between Miller and Chris Matthews on MSNBC's "Hardball":

Matthews: Do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

Miller: That was a metaphor, wasn't it? Do you know what a metaphor is? 

Matthews: Well, what do you mean by a metaphor?

Those city folks sure are sophisticated, aren't they?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

As a member of the American Legion, I found this to be an interesting tidbit from the Wall Street Journal:

John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam, got what the Washington Times calls a "lukewarm reception" for an unremarkable speech yesterday before the American Legion, which was meeting in Nashville, Tenn. In the second paragraph of the speech, Kerry committed this blunder:

"You are the citizen soldiers who know that our service does not end on the battlefield--it begins there. You know that the pledge we took to defend America is also a pledge to protect the promise America offers. And let there be no doubt--when I am president, you will have a fellow veteran in the White House who understands that those who fought for our country abroad should never have to fight for what they were promised at home."

Kerry must've thought he was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The American Legion is open to all vets, whether they served overseas or not. Rush Limbaugh notes that in "The New Soldier" (1971) Kerry, then an antiwar agitator, wrote: "We will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day, waving small flags, calling to memory those thousands who died for the greater glory of the United States. We will not readily join the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars."

Not unless they think it might help them win an election, anyway.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Found this blog on: http://www.rightgoths.com/index.php

Thought he made some good points...

*Setting the Record Straight, Before It's Too Late&#8230;*

Many have accused the Swift Vets for the Truth of both character defamation and the reopening of old wounds. For many Vietnam veterans, John Kerry reopened that wound once he decided to use his experiences from 35 years ago as a platform for his campaign.

Much of the anger that the Swift Vets are feeling is based on scars that Kerry himself inflicted on them, not 35 years ago, but two years after that, when the young Mr. Kerry delivered sworn testimony, and besmirched the reputations of nearly a whole generation of honorable military servicemen. As a man in his early-thirties, I didn't live through that era, but I had the great fortune of knowing several honorable men that did live through it, and their experiences helped to shape my view of that war.

I remember being scolded by a teacher in grade school for referring to the Vietnam War in an oral presentation I was delivering. She corrected me by saying that I meant the Vietnam Conflict, not war. I, having always carried a bit of a defiant streak in my personality, had a quick comeback to her correction. "I'm sorry Ms. Carter, but I'm sure those men that served in that conflict would rather I called it a war." The look on her face was worth the C that I received for what was (in my honestly humble opinion) an A worthy presentation.

I'm sure that much of Ms. Carter's use of the term 'conflict', coupled with her decision to give me a C, instead of an A, or even a B, was based on the fact that I was speaking favorably of the sacrifices that were made by the men that served in South East Asia. You see; I'm pretty sure that the term 'baby killers' was constantly in the back of Ms. Carter's mind as I delivered my report to the class. I'm sure that she found it very upsetting that I was not only misinformed (in her opinion), but that I was almost indoctrinating the classroom into a different view of recent history, this was certainly not the history that she tried so hard to teach all of us. After all, she knew that the men I spoke nobly of were 'baby killers', because John Kerry said they were. But, I never met a 'baby killer', quite the contrary, I met a number of respectable gentlemen, men that served their country, and came home to accusations that were leveled against them by one of their own.

Those of us that didn't serve during that turbulent time in American history will never fully understand what the argument really is, but the fight between the Swift Vets, and Senator Kerry is not something brand new. This fight is really a face-off that should have happened a long time ago. Why? Well, think of the Hollywood view of the typical Vietnam vet; drug addict, drunk, suicidal, disturbed. Why are they like that? Do you think it because they saw the horror of war? Why didn't the WWII vets seem even worse then? Honestly, the WWII vets did see far more carnage on the battlefield than the guys that served in Vietnam did. Perhaps it was because the men who served in Vietnam fought in a war that didn't directly affect America. But, that would mean the men who fought in the Korean War should be just like the Vietnam Vet. Or perhaps it means that the stereotype didn't fit the facts.

The facts are very simple; before Vietnam, we didn't use terms like 'baby killer' to describe our veterans. Before Vietnam, we didn't question the morality of our soldiers. Before Vietnam, we didn't spit on our military, and before Vietnam; we weren't told that brave, honorable, noble individuals, young men that were willing to put their lives on the line to defend freedom were somehow evil for doing such.

I submit that the origin of the Vietnam vet stigma was none other than John Kerry. I believe that his accusations against the soldiers in the field did more damage to their reputations than all of the protestors in the street and all of the deadly weapons they stood against in the war. When these men returned home they were treated as if they were the criminals, they were the enemy, they were the villains, and the damage was irreparable.

Drug abuse, alcoholism, and depression were less the side effects of the war itself as they were the result of the mistreatment these men suffered upon their return to civilian life. Unlike other wars, the boys coming home from South East Asia weren't welcomed with parades, and pats on the back. These men came home to hostility. That hostility remained present for at least a decade following the war. In the early eighties, our military was still being told to stay out of the uniform when not on the base.

How could this happen? Because Kerry's lies were taken for gospel truth and many people acted upon the anger that Kerry instilled in them. Could it possibly happen again? With smear maestros like Michael Moore being held in such high regard, I fear it can, and will happen again. That is unless honest people stand up for the truth and fight against the propaganda that is so quickly embraced by the ignorant and the hateful among us.

If the cycle isn't stopped before it gains momentum, we will likely see a presidential candidate named Michael Moore in a mere 10-15 years from now. After all, many see Mr. Moore's variety of anti-American propaganda, as a lovingly strong form of patriotism. Does the idea frighten you? Then don't let it happen and do everything you can to stick up for the truth.

Is it too late for the Vietnam veteran? Perhaps not, I think that the Swift Vets represent a last-ditch effort to set the record straight, and regain the dignity of their brothers in arms. History is written by the victorious, unfortunately in the case of the Vietnam War, the victor was the Vietcong, and John Kerry was all too willing to help them achieve their victory. The question is this; should a man who fought so hard to enable the victory of his country's enemy, be allowed to take command of the nation he helped defeat?


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Kerry is totally screwed now:
> 
> _Navy Challenging Kerry's Medals
> 
> ...


After Admiral Mike Boorda committed suicide when his phoney medals were discovered,

At the time, Kerry told the Boston Herald that wrongly wearing the medals is a severe error in judgment.

"Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes," he is quoted as saying.

Kerry also spoke to the Boston Globe about the matter.

"If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."

Now wait till we get the full story on Kerry and the Viet Vets Against the War. They held a meeting where it was actively and seriously discussed regarding assasinating sitting US Senators as political protest. He initailly denied being at the meeting until the Chicago Sun Times informed him they had the FBI file. Now, he just doesn't remeber being at a meeting where assasination was discussed. I mean, who would?


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Though it is still early, here are some numbers...

*Bush/Cheney Lead Kerry/Edwards 54 to 43 Percent; in a Three-Way Trial Heat, Bush/Cheney Receive 13-Point Margin Bounce

Bush Approval Rating Rises to 52 Percent; First Time Above 50 Since January;
Majority (53%) Wants to See Him Re-Elected-Highest Since May 2003

27 Percent of Registered Voters Think Bush/Cheney Campaign Is Behind Swift
Boat Ads*

NEW YORK, Sept. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Immediately following the Republican
National Convention in New York, the latest Newsweek Poll shows that, in a
two-way presidential trial heat, the Bush/Cheney ticket would win over a
Kerry/Edwards ticket by 54 percent vs. 43 percent among registered voters.

In a three-way trial heat, including Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader, the
Bush/Cheney ticket would still win 52 percent to 41 percent for Kerry/Edwards
and 3 percent for Nader/Camejo among registered voters. That represents a
13-point margin bounce for Bush/Cheney since an August 5-10 poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Pew Research Center.

And even though more Americans (49%) say they are dissatisfied with the
way things are going in the U.S. at this time (43% are satisfied), President
George W. Bush's approval rating has gone up to 52 percent, a seven-point
increase since the last Newsweek Poll (July 29-30), and the first time it's
topped 50 percent since January. Also 53 percent of registered voters say the
would like to see President Bush re-elected to another term. The last time a
majority of Americans wanted to see the president re-elected was May 2003.

In comparing the two presidential candidates, more registered voters think
President Bush has strong leadership qualities than Kerry (65% vs. 47%), is
more honest and ethical (62% vs. 47%), says what he believes and not just what people want to hear (66% vs. 42%), would trust him to make the right decisions during an international crisis (57% vs. 44%), shares their values (54% vs. 42%), and is personally likeable (67% vs. 59%). In addition, more registered voters think President Bush would do a better job than Sen. Kerry on various issues: terrorism and homeland security (60% vs. 32%), the situation in Iraq (55% vs. 37%), foreign policy (54% vs. 38%), taxes (52% vs. 38%), economy (49% vs. 43%), education (48% vs. 42%), and gay marriage (44% vs. 36%). More people say Sen. Kerry would do a better job than President Bush on healthcare, including Medicare (45% vs. 43%) and the environment (50% vs. 36%).

Two months before the election, more registered voters (28%) say terrorism
and homeland security is the most important issue in determining their vote.
Twenty-one percent say it's the economy, 13 percent say healthcare and only 11 percent say the situation in Iraq. On that subject, a majority of registered voters (55%) think that the U.S. did the right thing in talking military action in Iraq, though 50 percent say the war has not made Americans safer from terrorism (45% think it has). And, among registered voters, 44 percent think Saddam Hussein's regime was not directly involved in 9-11 (42% say it was).

Despite the four-day convention, a strong 60-percent majority of
registered voters say they saw none of (32%) or very little (28%) coverage of the RNC on television last week. Only 40 percent say they saw some of it
(24%) or a great deal (16%). And only 36 percent say they now have a more
favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 27 percent saying they have a
less favorable opinion. Of Independents, 29 percent said they have a more
favorable opinion of the Republicans and 27 percent said less favorable.
Following the Democratic convention in July, 41 percent who said they had a
more favorable opinion of the Democrats. Only 24 percent said they had a less favorable opinion. And of the 45 percent of registered voters who said they watched all or part of the President's speech, 37 percent said they had a more favorable opinion of him, while 18 percent said it was less favorable.

As to the presidential candidates' military service, though 75 percent of
registered voters say what they've seen or heard about Bush's military service
will not have much effect on their vote, and 62 percent say the same about
Kerry's military service in Vietnam, 75 percent of registered voters have seen
or heard about the recent TV Ads sponsored by a veterans' group questioning
Kerry's military record. And 21 percent say those ads are generally accurate.
Thirty-nine percent say they are misleading or distorted. Only 25 percent are
not aware of those ads. Twenty-seven percent of registered voters think the
Bush/Cheney campaign is behind the ads, while 38 percent think they were
produced independently. (However, 26 percent of military households who have seen or heard about John Kerry's military record say they are less likely to vote for him).

Looking ahead to the next presidential campaign, a majority of registered
voters (50%) said they would like to see former New York City Mayor Rudy
Giuliani run for president in 2008 (65% of Republicans), followed by Arizona
Sen. John McCain (48%, 47% of Republicans), and Arnold Schwarzenegger (22%, 30% of Republicans), if the Constitution were changed to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens to run.

This poll is part of the September 13 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands
Monday, September 6). For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research
Associates International interviewed 1,008 adults aged 18 and older on Sept.
2-3, 2004. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

It seems President Clinton is pointing Senator Kerry away from talking about Vietnam...

*Kerry Enlisting Clinton Aides in Effort to Refocus Campaign*
_By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID M. HALBFINGER_

Former President Bill Clinton, in a 90-minute telephone conversation from his hospital room, offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy, as Mr. Kerry enlisted more Clinton advisers to help shape his strategy and message for the remainder of the campaign.

In an expansive conversation, Mr. Clinton, who is awaiting heart surgery, told Mr. Kerry that he should move away from talking about Vietnam, which had been the central theme of his candidacy, and focus instead on drawing contrasts with President Bush on job creation and health care policies, officials with knowledge of the conversation said.


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

Kerry was stupid for talking about vietnam so much in the first place. it was 35 years ago, so who really gives a crap. i'm more interested in finding out what the candidates propose to do today, not what they did or didn't do 35 years ago.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Fat Tony said:


> Kerry was stupid for talking about vietnam so much in the first place. it was 35 years ago, so who really gives a crap. i'm more interested in finding out what the candidates propose to do today, not what they did or didn't do 35 years ago.


Its incredible that the best plan they can come up with is to lambast Bush on 35 years ago, his current record has plenty of debateable points.

With the Clintonites ensconced in the Kerry campaign, the "fix" is in. He's toast when CLinton starts to help. If you look at Clintons record, he almost never has helped anyone else get elected, even though he could win almost anything he wants simply on his personal charm.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Excellent article on the Dems hatred of Bush and understanding why they hate Bush so much...

*Fear and Loathing in Manhattan * 
_What motivates the Angry Left? Revenge. _

BY ALAN BROMLEY 
Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

NEW YORK--Outside the Sheraton on Seventh Avenue last Wednesday, a protester brandished her feelings on cardboard: "We don't just hate Bush, we hate all of you." She was accompanied by two young men, flush with their first beards, one of whom had a sign that stated, "You have blood on your hands." Republican delegates there were not fazed, even though the night before some had to have police escorts out of Scopa to escape the wrath and intimidation of the protesters.

I, for one, was born into confrontation, growing up in a Jewish-socialist household, where whatever my poor mother served for dinner was secondary to the political rantings of my father, an attorney, activist and speaker before the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

So, naturally, I approached the young woman and asked, "Did you protest Saddam Hussein's killing of 1.5 million people? Are you protesting China's policy of aborting female fetuses?" She threw her sign at me! I took it home.

The night before I attended a private party at the plush Fifth Avenue home of Georgette Mosbacher, a place where I felt less at home than I did on Seventh Avenue. I was glad my wife wasn't there to gaze at the paintings adorning 20-foot ceilings, and rooms that seemed to measure 35 by 25 feet no matter where you strolled. It was filled with media stars, big donors in dark suits and tall, beautiful women.

One very engaging TV show host, describing himself as a Democrat, asked me, "Where does the hatred of President Bush come from? I don't understand it."

"You know," I replied, "I have to confess to recognizing that hatred. I had it for President Clinton. I knew from the moment that he said he 'didn't inhale' that he was a gratuitous, if not compulsive, liar, and from there I questioned his every move. The attempt to take over the health care industry, the IRS audits of so many critics of his that the odds of spotting a platypus in the Central Park reservoir were greater than not being audited if you were an anti-Clinton group; the treatment of Billy Dale in the travel office. I felt he was brutal in his dealings with people, all while espousing equality, so I came to loathe him."

Now, when I witness the hatred spewing from this season's protesters, I realize how difficult it was for my friends to accept my own loathing, no matter how justified I felt. At many parties, my wife had to leave early, just to accompany me out the door after a political debate.

At one dinner, after appetizers and before entrees, our friends Ted and his wife Sharon, said they had "heard enough!" I asked, "enough of politics, or enough of my views?" They replied, almost in unison, "Your views!" They then left the table and went home.

To their credit, the next day they apologized. Now, years later, it's my turn: "Ted and Sharon. I'm sorry for being so strident." Seeing the anger of these protesters, I realize for the first time how toxic I was, even if I was right on the issues.

So what virus of hatred has now infected our young and their idols in Hollywood, the music industry and the liberal media?

It's not really that they oppose ridding the world of Saddam Hussein (President Clinton recognized him as a dangerous malignancy) or fear losing jobs abroad (President Clinton pushed for free trade). It's not "sweetheart deals for Halliburton" (which has lost money for seven straight quarters, and which President Clinton brought into Kosovo) or "oil" (this administration is freeing up oil revenues for the Iraqi people, not for palaces or armaments and weapons of mass destruction).

It's about payback.

I once took a course with my former good friend Eric (we had too many strident political disagreements to remain cordial), one of the pre-eminent sales training professionals in the country, where he exhibited that within any group when someone offering a solution or plan is shot down, that person will retaliate within minutes. So what we have here is retaliation. We conservatives spent at least four years battling, criticizing, impaling and impeaching President Clinton. Earlier, we watched his minions pillory Robert Bork into a verb and try to turn Justice Clarence Thomas into Uncle Tom.

Mr. Clinton was the "poster boy" of Hollywood, strutting, flirting and exercising his power, like the Warner Bros., and taking his rewards in both lust and revenge. Tinsel Town works like that; so does Seventh Avenue, by the way, and those who are close to the glitter wink and pick up the remnants of the game.

And those who sit in judgment of power misused are nowhere, rolling stones, as the song says--they don't wield anything; neither favors nor envy. So, led by the "elite" on the west coast and the media on 43rd Street, (who relish and languish in their own powers as "arbiters of truth") these protesters embrace hate, the hate of revenge.

They march down Broadway carrying their ugly demeanor and vile signs; they heckle and try to intimidate those who try to embrace reason and embrace the optimism that has made America great.

But those who build, create--and who came to New York City to endorse President Bush--need not be afraid of the protesters and their messages of hate and doom. Tomorrow has always been better in the United States of America. And yesterday was a damn good day.

_Mr. Bromley lives and writes in New York City._


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I must be an idiot.... 

*Heinz Kerry: Opponents Of Health Care Plan Are 'Idiots' * 
_Candidate's Wife Doesn't Mince Words
Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan._

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that "of course, there are idiots."

Kerry's proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

If Kerry is elected, Heinz Kerry predicts that opponents of his health care plan will be voted out of office. She says, "Only an idiot wouldn't like this."

Heinz Kerry stumped in Lancaster, Harrisburg and York on Wednesday, the third day of a four-day campaign swing through Pennsylvania.

On Thursday, she holds a roundtable discussion health care at a hotel in King of Prussia.


----------



## relaxnsmoke (Mar 24, 2003)

hmmmm, we'll ignore anything to do with Bushs' record, yet if Kerry is being looked into....ahhh nevermind. I just had a gut feeling along with a reality check. One mans military record should be an open book, the others is not important is the drift I'm getting. So I guess you guys just want to save me the trouble of defending George W. Bushs' military service. Thanks. :u


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> hmmmm, we'll ignore anything to do with Bushs' record, yet if Kerry is being looked into....ahhh nevermind. I just had a gut feeling along with a reality check. One mans military record should be an open book, the others is not important is the drift I'm getting. So I guess you guys just want to save me the trouble of defending George W. Bushs' military service. Thanks. :u


I think both men's military records are important. In 2000, President Bush's record was heavily examined and now we are doing it again. That is fine by me.

President Bush himself has said Senator Kerry's military record is better than his own record. I would agree. President Bush has not brought up Senator Kerry's war protests. He has brought up Senator Kerry's proposals and his record as a Senator.

:u


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

relaxnsmoke said:


> hmmmm, we'll ignore anything to do with Bushs' record, yet if Kerry is being looked into....ahhh nevermind. I just had a gut feeling along with a reality check. One mans military record should be an open book, the others is not important is the drift I'm getting. So I guess you guys just want to save me the trouble of defending George W. Bushs' military service. Thanks. :u


One man made Viet Nam his major qualification to be president. The other has been president for 4 years. At 35 years ago, it still seems slightly less important than each man's contemporary record.

But, now we will go through the smearing of Bush's record. It will backfire as people are getting really tired of the whole thing. The polls show that people are making their decisions and Kerry had better start telling us why he wants to be president or he is out of it.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

assafire said:


> One man made Viet Nam his major qualification to be president. The other has been president for 4 years. At 35 years ago, it still seems slightly less important than each man's contemporary record.
> 
> But, now we will go through the smearing of Bush's record. It will backfire as people are getting really tired of the whole thing. The polls show that people are making their decisions and Kerry had better start telling us why he wants to be president or he is out of it.


I think you're right on the first point. But remember Kerry has done SQUAT in the senate....what the hell else can he point to? "I'm in the senate, I've done shit" doesn't make good press.

Bush's record hasn't been smeared, he went AWOL and got away with it because his dad had major connections. Thats pretty clear. And when he worked on the senator's campaign, he was out drinking and did such as badass poor job that other volunteers (he was paid) had to take over his work. BUT, thats still much better in my book than backstabbing american soldiers like that miserable Kerry.

Between the two there really isn't much choice.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

SeanGAR said:


> Bush's record hasn't been smeared, he went AWOL and got away with it because his dad had major connections. Thats pretty clear.


Bush did NOT go AWOL. That has already been documented. Please get your facts correct.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

SeanGAR said:


> I think you're right on the first point. But remember Kerry has done SQUAT in the senate....what the hell else can he point to? "I'm in the senate, I've done shit" doesn't make good press.
> 
> Bush's record hasn't been smeared, he went AWOL and got away with it because his dad had major connections. Thats pretty clear. And when he worked on the senator's campaign, he was out drinking and did such as badass poor job that other volunteers (he was paid) had to take over his work. BUT, thats still much better in my book than backstabbing american soldiers like that miserable Kerry.
> 
> Between the two there really isn't much choice.


No one has yet shown he went AWOL, He had acquired the necessary points to satisfy his obligation. He served active military for two straight years. as for meetings, they were a little lenient on those, especially with guys who had already racked significant pointage.

The CBS thing will be shown to be frauds. Ther documents already look pretty funky and the widow of the alleged author says no way are those her husbands. Note the docs come from someone dead, not alive.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

assafire said:


> No one has yet shown he went AWOL, He had acquired the necessary points to satisfy his obligation. He served active military for two straight years. as for meetings, they were a little lenient on those, especially with guys who had already racked significant pointage.


Correct you are assafire.

_So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 - the time that has been the focus of so many news reports - when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points - not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."_

(From an article by Byron York)


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Terry McAuliffe, Chair of the DNC, is now blaming Karl Rove for setting them up with the forged NG docs.

If this is so, then these guys aren't even smart enough to run the country, much less a party. This is pure payback for SwiftBoats. If that is the basis, they have already lost. Everyday that goes by, fewer people care about 35 years ago, you can see it in the polls. 

They see the terrorists in Russia slaughtering children and they are reminded that these bastards aren't going away and will never surrender. The only way to gain ours and the worlds security is to kill them till they quit. We provide this service to an ungrateful world while Liberals worry about our "tarnished image". A tarnished image is preferable to dead children, at least I believe so.

Oh, and Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Byrd had better call Putin and tell him a policy of pre-emption will not work.

And now for fun


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Senator Kerry is accusing President Bush of losing jobs for America. I agree with Thomas Sowell, who wrote, "According to the Kerry campaign, President Bush has 'lost' over a million jobs since taking office. This of course assumes that jobs are Presidents' to win or lose." 

The issue at hand is where jobs are created. I think the private sector creates jobs, not the government. I think the government can be an influence on the creation of jobs through tax rates and rebates, but there is little else they can do in a free market economy.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> Senator Kerry is accusing President Bush of losing jobs for America. I agree with Thomas Sowell, who wrote, "According to the Kerry campaign, President Bush has 'lost' over a million jobs since taking office. This of course assumes that jobs are Presidents' to win or lose."
> 
> The issue at hand is where jobs are created. I think the private sector creates jobs, not the government. I think the government can be an influence on the creation of jobs through tax rates and rebates, but there is little else they can do in a free market economy.


I totally agree. The democrats (and alot of republicans) for some reason have fallen into the notion that it is the government responsibility to create jobs, provide healthcare, etc. Guess what people, that is called COMMUNISM. As far as I'm concerned the governments main responsibility is protecting its citizens from internal and external threats and providing an environment to allow the free market to thrive. The market will correct itself, government or no government.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> I totally agree. The democrats (and alot of republicans) for some reason have fallen into the notion that it is the government responsibility to create jobs, provide healthcare, etc. Guess what people, that is called COMMUNISM. As far as I'm concerned the governments main responsibility is protecting its citizens from internal and external threats and providing an environment to allow the free market to thrive. The market will correct itself, government or no government.


Naturally, you are so very correct. But evey election cycle for the last 36 years, people are told "I'll create a million jobs", "Healthcare for everyone".

Colleges teach a Socialist agenda and students are taught that healthcare is a "human right', Housing", "jobs". Obviously, no economic education is provided as these people believe the "rich" can finance it all. Its a short leap to state controlled "command" economy. This despite plenty of history that it simply doesn't work.

From Harmony, IN to Cuba an utter failure that gets promoted time and again. No one even knows the lessons of the Russian Kulaks.

I remember when welfare was the "human right" du jour. Every cycle saw Democrats proclaiming: "vote for me, I'll increase welfare spending (your check), vote for (Republican) and he'll cut welfare spending (your check)." Literally said it. Now, its Social Security, the same tactic.

Its discouraging.

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait till its free!"

and now for fun


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

assafire said:


> Naturally, you are so very correct. But evey election cycle for the last 36 years, people are told "I'll create a million jobs", "Healthcare for everyone".
> 
> Colleges teach a Socialist agenda and students are taught that healthcare is a "human right', Housing", "jobs". Obviously, no economic education is provided as these people believe the "rich" can finance it all. Its a short leap to state controlled "command" economy. This despite plenty of history that it simply doesn't work.
> 
> ...


Bingo. Though Im an engineering major, I had to take some humanities electives. I researched the profs, and tried to find the one that would tick me off the least (most conservative). He would never admit to being on the liberal side of the spectrum, but instead would say he is a supporter of human rights. Wonderful, me too...But healthcare, nice cars, a job, and the absense of consequences for your actions do not qualify as human rights. Sometimes life is just going to suck, but of course no one wants to hear that and therefore wont vote for it.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> Bingo. Though Im an engineering major, I had to take some humanities electives. I researched the profs, and tried to find the one that would tick me off the least (most conservative). He would never admit to being on the liberal side of the spectrum, but instead would say he is a supporter of human rights. Wonderful, me too...But healthcare, nice cars, a job, and the absense of consequences for your actions do not qualify as human rights. Sometimes life is just going to suck, but of course no one wants to hear that and therefore wont vote for it.


AAlmeter, I do hope you are young, you give me hope that my country will still be here after I'm gone. Believe me, I'm concerned.

When I went to Iowa. I was 32. (Jimmy Carter had put me out of job and I used the last of my GI Bill.) I had a Spanish prof who gave extra credit if we would see "El Norte", a nice anti-rich American flick. I passed, but was appalled that if a student would but tow the official Liberal line, well it would at least LOOK like they did well in school.

Anyone who appreciates Ann Coulter simply cannot be all bad.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

yep, only 21 and thanks...but atleast you wont have to live with it. im stuck with these idiots for another 60 years


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

and about ann, whats not to like


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> and about ann, whats not to like


Ahhh, she'd be the perfect woman if she could skin her own deer and cook the meat for me!


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

I thought I would compare the two health care plans of the candidates. The following come right off the official websites of the two candidates.

*President Bush:*

Reforming Health Care

President Bush believes all Americans should have access to affordable, quality health care. President Bush is working to address the root causes of rising health care costs, rather than shifting the costs to taxpayers or forcing Americans into an inflexible, one-size-fits-all bureaucratic system. The President's plan reduces the rising cost of health care; provides affordable coverage to those who need it most - low-income children and families, small businesses, the self-employed, and people who do not get health benefits through their job; and improves health care information, quality, and safety. To achieve the goal of more affordable health care, the President has:

Established new, tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSA) which allow Americans to own and control their own health care. 
Opened or expanded community and rural health centers with the goal of serving an additional 6.1 million people who live in underserved and rural areas.

Granted waivers and flexibility to states to extend eligibility under Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to an estimated 2.6 million low-income Americans.

Implemented a new rule to lower drug costs for millions of Americans by strengthening competition between generic and brand-name drugs, saving American consumers more than $35 billion in drug costs over the next ten years.

Created a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit to help seniors pay for their medicines.

Improving Health Care for Children

In order to help children and families obtain health care, President Bush will:

Promote Affordable Health Care for Children - The President will launch a nationwide, billion dollar Cover the Kids campaign to sign up more children for quality health care coverage. The Cover the Kids campaign will combine the resources of the Federal Government, states, and community organizations, including faith-based organizations, with the goal of covering all SCHIP-eligible children within the next two years.

Promoting Affordable Health Care for Every American

To address the root causes of high health care costs and help provide affordable health care to American families, the President will:

Expand Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) - President Bush will propose a tax credit for low-income families and individuals to purchase health insurance, or to purchase a low-premium, high-deductible health plan and an HSA. Families will receive up to $2,000 for their premiums and $1,000 cash to put in their HSAs to help meet the deductible. Individuals will receive up to $700 for their premiums and $300 for their HSAs.

Promote a Health Savings Account Tax Credit to Help Small Business Employees - President Bush will propose a tax credit for HSA contributions to help individuals and families who work for small businesses fund their HSAs. Small businesses and their employees who set up an HSA will get a tax rebate for contributions to the HSA of up to $500 per worker with family coverage and $200 per worker with individual coverage.

Provide an Above-the-Line Deduction for Health Insurance Premiums - President Bush has proposed to allow individuals who purchase low-premium, high-deductible insurances policies to deduct the premiums they pay for these policies. It will reduce the net cost of these policies and encourage the use of HSAs for saving for health care needs and making wise, cost-effective health care choices.

Allow Small Businesses to Establish Association Health Plans (AHPs) - While large businesses can use their purchasing power to get better deals from insurance companies, smaller firms often find that coverage is priced beyond their reach. To give small employers and their workers more purchasing power, the President has proposed allowing small businesses to band together and negotiate on behalf of their employees and their families. 
Expand Association Health Plans - President Bush supports AHP expansion so that people who purchase coverage on their own can buy health insurance from a group other than an employer. This would allow civic and charitable groups, churches, and other types of organizations to offer health insurance to their members.

Allow Shopping for Health Coverage Across State Lines - Today it's easy to use the Internet or toll-free numbers to shop for products. But different rules apply to health insurance. Consumers can only purchase health insurance in the state in which they live, and can't shop around for a better deal in another state. The President proposes giving people the freedom to shop across state lines to find the best rates for their health coverage.

Expanding Community Health Centers 
President Bush recognized the needs of uninsured and medically underserved communities and promised to open or expand 1,200 health center sites to serve an additional 6.1 million Americans by 2006. In his second term, the President will build upon his proven record of expanding access to health care to help communities in need. The President will:

Ensure that Each of America's Poorest Communities has a Health Center - These health centers are located in medically underserved urban and rural areas where there is little access to basic health care services. They provide critical primary and preventive health care services to low-income individuals, migrant farm workers, homeless individuals, and children regardless of their ability to pay.

Controlling Rising Health Care Costs

The President will reduce health care costs by improving the use of technology in the provision of health care by:

Promoting Health Information Technology (IT) - The President has undertaken a new initiative to make electronic health records universally available within the next decade. This new initiative will improve health care quality, reduce its cost, and improve access to affordable care by applying to health care the same information technology that has transformed so many other industries. Health IT will also help eliminate medical mistakes, leading to increased quality and safety for patients.

Fighting for Medical Liability Reform - President Bush proposes commonsense liability reforms that will speed recovery of damages to patients, fairly compensate those who have been injured, and increase access to care. These reforms will help prevent skyrocketing medical liability premiums that force doctors to give up the practice of medicine, threaten access to needed care, and drive up health care costs for everyone.

Fighting Health Care Fraud and Waste - President Bush signed a Medicare bill that will cut wasteful spending out of the program, saving seniors and taxpayers an estimated $20 billion over the next decade. The Department of Health and Human Services also has issued regulations closing a Medicaid loophole that will save the Federal Government an estimated $25 billion. The President has proposed saving another $24 billion over the next ten years by reducing states' Medicaid cost-shifting to the Federal Government.

Providing Affordable Health Care for Seniors and People with Disabilities

In December 2003, President Bush signed a new Medicare law that will provide 40 million seniors and people with disabilities with better benefits and more options for the first time in Medicare's history. The new prescription drug benefit will empower seniors and Americans with disabilities to choose the health care coverage that is best for them.

Beginning this past June, millions of seniors started saving on their prescription medicines with Medicare-approved discount cards. Nearly 4.2 million seniors are already using their cards to save money on their medicines. In addition to these savings, low-income seniors are getting a $600 a year credit - a total of $1,200 through the end of 2005 - to help pay for prescriptions.

In his second term, President Bush will keep his commitment to continue implementing this very important program for America's seniors by:

Implementing Prescription Drug Benefit - Beginning in January 2006, all beneficiaries will be able to sign up for prescription drug coverage under Medicare. This new benefit will provide the greatest help to those in greatest need - seniors with low-incomes and those with high prescription drug bills - but will provide savings to all seniors who sign up.

Expanding and Improving Benefits for Seniors - In addition to prescription drug coverage, the new Medicare law provides better coverage of preventive benefits and coverage of disease management services.

Beginning next year, Medicare's coverage of preventive services is being expanded to include screenings for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. 
Beginning next year, everyone who enrolls in Medicare will be covered for an initial physical examination.

For the first time, Medicare will offer disease management services that will help beneficiaries with chronic medical conditions avoid dangerous and costly medical complications.

*Senator Kerry:*

Affordable, high-quality health care will keep our families healthy, our businesses competitive, and our country strong. 
Over the last three years, family premiums have increased by more than $3,512 and prescription drug prices have grown four times faster than inflation. These skyrocketing costs have hurt our economy and forced many families into bankruptcy.

We deserve a president who understands that in America, regular check-ups shouldn't empty family checkbooks - a president who will put people ahead of insurance and drug companies.

John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to address soaring premiums and cut Americans a break. Their plan will lower family premiums by up to $1,000 a year, cut waste from the system, lower the cost of prescription drugs to provide real relief to seniors, and use targeted tax cuts to extend affordable, high-quality coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every child. And because John Kerry and John Edwards believe that everyone's health is equally important, they will provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves.

To make affordable health care a right - not a privilege - for every American, John Kerry and John Edwards will:

Cut Your Premiums
John Kerry and John Edwards will cut family premiums by up to $1,000. That's $1,000 in real savings people can use to buy groceries, pay the bills, and save for their children's future. And that will mean more jobs and more competitive American businesses.

Cover All Americans With Quality Care
The Kerry-Edwards plan will give every American access to the range of high-quality, affordable plans available to members of Congress and extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans, including every American child. Their plan will also fight to erase the health disparities that persist along racial and economic lines, ensure that people with HIV and AIDS have the care they need, end discrimination against Americans with disabilities and mental illnesses, and ensure equal treatment for mental illness in our health system.

Cut the Cost of Prescription Drugs
The Kerry-Edwards plan will reduce prescription drug prices by allowing the re-importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada, overhauling the Medicare drug plan, ensuring low-cost drugs, and ending artificial barriers to generic drug competition.

Cut Waste And Inefficiency
Today, approximately 25 percent of health care costs are wasted on paperwork and administrative processing. The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

AAlmeter said:


> yep, only 21 and thanks...but atleast you wont have to live with it. *im stuck with these idiots for another 60 years*


Ouch, that kinda stung :r


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Treyjo43 said:


> Ouch, that kinda stung :r


Aint that the truth. Just turned 51 and I'm already out of it(which is true BTW).
AAlmeter, You're outta' the will, decided to spend it all! :r

Glad to see some of that American spirit still lives. Alphonso Jackson, Sec HUD, was booed at a Baptist convention when he started telling people life was a do it yourself project, having the Dems provide it all was futile. 
A self evident truth: what government gives, it can take away. Now that's how you control a population. Ask Stalin.

Is Kerry French for Dukakis? 

Couldn't sleep this morning, A Don Tomas SE 500 and coffee, then weight lifting w/ the spouse.

AAlmeter, I hope you do well in school, it pays big dividends in stability and employability.

Not to throw too much out here, but if sending jobs overseas is cheaper, does that mean its too expensive here? OSHA, Social Sec, Healthcare, tort awards, Work Comp? Wasn't cost a big factor in Cal?

I think costs are the reason for the new OT rules, it makes the US a little more competitive. OOPs, time for another chapter of "As the Rather Spins".


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

In regards to health care plans, I think President Bush's plan is too ambitious and Senator Kerry's plan is too much like socialism. So, I don't really like either plan, but if I had to choose one (which I have to do!), I would choose President Bush's because he emphasizes less government control than Senator Kerry does in regards to health care.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Interesting article on the personal side of President Bush....

*A Governor and a Shooting in Fort Worth*
_By Dr. Paul Kengor_

This week marks the fifth anniversary of one of the worst weeks in the history of Fort Worth, Texas. What happened that week was a demonstration of evil and good, of a mad killer at work and a kind community in mourning. The week also revealed something about the man who now sits in the White House.

On September 15, 1999, a deranged man in a black trench coat entered a church in Ft. Worth, Texas, armed with bullets and a pipe bomb. He approached a group of worshippers in the foyer awaiting choir practice. He asked about a prayer meeting, and then began shooting. He headed to the sanctuary, which he sprayed with gunfire as he shouted obscenities. Seven were dead and many more injured. A teenage boy stopped the slaughter when he yelled out defiantly, "You can kill me but you can't kill my faith!" Upon hearing those words, the assassin found a pew, sat down, and shot himself.

The first person murdered that day was Sydney Browning, a seminary graduate and local educator who was selected Teacher of the Year at her high school two years in a row. She was hit in the head and chest at point-blank range and died instantly. Her father, Don, has obviously never forgotten that day, nor the compassion from the community he saw in the days that followed. "I never saw anything grip the city like that," he says today.

The morning after the massacre an impromptu prayer session was held at the pastor's house. The church was now a crime scene, filled with police, coroners, chalked lines, bullet-ridden oak walls, and blood-soaked carpets. A surprise attendee at that prayer session was Texas Governor George W. Bush, who made the 186-mile trip from Austin. He arrived unannounced and left almost as quietly. A church of God had been converted into a Texas killing field, and the governor came to offer his personal prayers.

So overwhelming was the outpouring of grief that the shocked community was forced to hold the memorial service at the football stadium at Texas Christian University. Sydney Browning's father was asked to speak at the service. When he arrived backstage before the event, he unexpectedly encountered the Texas governor. The two men shook hands. "Are you coming into this a believer?" Bush asked. Browning nodded. "God bless you," said Bush. "I'm praying for you." The service organizers then asked their unanticipated guest if he would like to sit at the platform with the other VIPs. The governor replied, "No, this isn't about me," and sat in the stands among the thousands.

Browning spoke last. The choir director had long ago connected with his little girl through music, and he thought it fitting to finish his remarks by extemporaneously singing the first song his daughter had sung in public. "This little light of mine, I'm gonna' let it shine," he began, asking the audience to join him. Browning paused to note that the last verse of the song reads: "Let it shine 'til Jesus comes." He told the crowd that his daughter no longer needs to sing that last line, but the rest of them do. The tribute closed with that. When the service ended, the governor approached Browning once more. "That was great," said Bush, clasping Browning's hand. "I couldn't have done it."

George W. Bush then exited as he came: low-key, with no cameras. He had said nothing profound or poetic. One can understand why his appearance went unreported. His response was memorable only for its lack of showiness. In both visits after the shooting, Bush avoided the press, told no one he was coming, stayed, prayed, paid his respects, talked briefly to the families, and then silently drove away.

My home sits 1,300 miles from Ft. Worth. I learned of this story while researching George W. Bush's faith. Someone recommended I look into this terrible incident. That someone suggested I telephone his friend, Don Browning. One day in April 2004 I did just that, and spent an hour on the telephone with Mr. Browning, who recounted to me (a stranger) the awful details of the Texas church shooting that took the life of his beloved daughter, Sydney. I'm sure my call ruined his day. Still, through that tragedy, Don Browning saw a side of the current president that the rest of us have not, and felt that side needed to be told.

It's easy to demonize our politicians, whether they are George W. Bush or John F. Kerry. It's also easy to dehumanize them, to forget they are human beings. And that was George W. Bush, now the world's most powerful man, five years ago this week-not a politician but just a person grieving with the rest of Texas.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> In regards to health care plans, I think President Bush's plan is too ambitious and Senator Kerry's plan is too much like socialism. So, I don't really like either plan, but if I had to choose one (which I have to do!), I would choose President Bush's because he emphasizes less government control than Senator Kerry does in regards to health care.


IMO, the Repubs are now the new Democrats. The Dems have found their old turf has been co-opted and keep going further left, hence the Loonies have taken primacy. The modern Democratic party is not the your father's Oldsmobile. John Kennedy wouldn't recognize it.

Why Bush keeps staking out positions that would make Hubert Humphrey and Geo McGovern cringe is beyond me. I assume he believes people won't vote for him with out these populist "gifts". If so, this country may already be going down the Socialist road.

The Afro-American cohort is prodding Kerry for his version of "gifts for votes" and have told him that folks may not get out and vote without them. I assume the reader is familiar with the phrase "walking around money" where in parties give away cash to, in this case, Black Ministers and churches, to ensure they urge voter turnout. Apparently the Dems aren't liberal enough in this respect. Now THAT's suppression of the Black vote.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

League of Women Voters posed this question to the candidates:

*Question: How will you balance the costs of America's foreign policy agenda with the costs of domestic policy needs?*

They answered it as follows:

*President Bush*

Our Nation has three great priorities: protecting the American people,promoting economic growth and creating jobs for Americans, and winning the global war on terror.

Prosperity and security go hand-in-hand. When I first came to office, the economy was entering a recession and the stock market was falling. As we started to come out of the recession, our country was attacked by terrorists. We lost one million jobs in three months following the September 11th attacks.

I addressed these challenges with a comprehensive agenda. To promote economic growth and job creation, I began with a clear understanding of the role of government. America's economy is sustained by the free enterprise system, and by the hard work of the Nation's entrepreneurs and workers. Government spends a lot of money, but it doesn't build factories, or meet company payrolls, or do all the work that makes the economy go. The Federal government's job is not to manage or control the economy, but to remove obstacles standing in the way of faster growth. Through broad-based tax relief, I trusted the American people to make the best decisions with their money. Today, America's economy is the fastest-growing economy in the industrialized world, creating over 1.4 million jobs since last August.

To accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must set clear priorities and stick to them. A period of war and recession-induced deficits imposes the need for extra care in our spending priorities, and discipline that fits the times. The budgets I have presented to Congress proposed moderate increases in government funding, based on the premise that government spending should grow no faster than the average increase in American family incomes. Some priorities -like defense, homeland security, veterans' services, education, and job training -require larger increases. Other parts of government need less. By establishing our priorities -winning the war on terror and ensuring that America is on the path for strong long-term economic growth and job creation -we are meeting unprecedented challenges and making America stronger.

*Senator Kerry*

My overriding goal as President will be to keep America safe, secure and strong. Our strength comes from a combination of our economy, our military, the power of our ideas and values, and our ability to lead in the world. In my almost 20 years as a U.S. Senator, I've made the hard choices required to balance our national priorities to best serve the interests of Americans. I have fought for balanced budgets, better education for our children, stewardship of our environment, reforming our health care system, furthering our interests overseas and for the military, intelligence services and homeland security priorities that keep us safe.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> League of Women Voters posed this question to the candidates:
> 
> *Senator Kerry*
> 
> ...


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Treyjo43 said:


> Ouch, that kinda stung :r


Ha, sorry Trey. You know that doesnt apply to anyone born on such a wonderful day as 1/17/83


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

Wetterhorn said:


> In regards to health care plans, I think President Bush's plan is too ambitious and Senator Kerry's plan is too much like socialism. So, I don't really like either plan, but if I had to choose one (which I have to do!), I would choose President Bush's because he emphasizes less government control than Senator Kerry does in regards to health care.


Maybe I'm a commie, but I think medicine should be available (I don't necessarily mean FREE here) for all Americans, not just the incarcerated felons, the old and the poor.

But the Canadian medical system is bankrupt. We can't go there, we need to improve what we have instead of going in a completely different direction and crapping on our toes in the process. We need to do something, but I think expecting the government to come in and "fix it" is naive, the doctors and insurers need to get together to fix their own problems and to decrease the massive overhead we have in the US.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

assafire said:


> IMO, the Repubs are now the new Democrats. The Dems have found their old turf has been co-opted and keep going further left, hence the Loonies have taken primacy. The modern Democratic party is not the your father's Oldsmobile. John Kennedy wouldn't recognize it.
> 
> Why Bush keeps staking out positions that would make Hubert Humphrey and Geo McGovern cringe is beyond me. I assume he believes people won't vote for him with out these populist "gifts". If so, this country may already be going down the Socialist road.
> 
> The Afro-American cohort is prodding Kerry for his version of "gifts for votes" and have told him that folks may not get out and vote without them. I assume the reader is familiar with the phrase "walking around money" where in parties give away cash to, in this case, Black Ministers and churches, to ensure they urge voter turnout. Apparently the Dems aren't liberal enough in this respect. Now THAT's suppression of the Black vote.


Yup. Thats why I wont register as a Rep. As much as I would like to because it ticks off libs, I feel they are following the democrats history of buying votes.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

SeanGAR said:


> Maybe I'm a commie, but I think medicine should be available (I don't necessarily mean FREE here) for all Americans, not just the incarcerated felons, the old and the poor.
> 
> But the Canadian medical system is bankrupt. We can't go there, we need to improve what we have instead of going in a completely different direction and crapping on our toes in the process. We need to do something, but I think expecting the government to come in and "fix it" is naive, the doctors and insurers need to get together to fix their own problems and to decrease the massive overhead we have in the US.


Free the system of the BS and let it work on its own. Its nice to separate the industry from all others because it helps people and makes us feel warm and tingly inside when TLC shows a lifesaving surgery, but it is an industry. Let capitalism take its course, and we will all be able to afford adequate medicine.

On top of that, we need to get rid of Kerry and Edwards, more specifically the BS trial lawyers. Laws provide too many loopholes, so we need to set up a loser pays system similar to that in the UK to protect doctors, companies, etc from frivolous lawsuits. Then make sure we have trials and hearings by active voters, not activist judges. The reason for active voters is that it would presumably give a juror base slightly more educated and involved than the current base.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

On the topic of voter suppression:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged the Florida Supreme Court to allow Ralph Nader's name on the state ballot after it hears an appeal Friday by the independent presidential candidate.

A state judge rejected Nader's efforts to be on the ballot as the candidate of the Reform Party, which the judge said is no longer a legitimate national party under state law. The state supreme court said it will issue a ruling shortly after hearing the appeal.

Story Continues Below

"I believe it would be a mistake to let a set of inequitable ballot rules keep a legitimate presidential candidate off the ballot," McCain said in a statement released Thursday night by The Reform Institute, a political and educational organization he chairs.

"These obstacles discourage public participation in elections by denying voters the right to vote for their preferred candidate. Keeping Nader off the ballot in the hope that his voters will be forced to support another candidate is patently unfair to those Floridians who, for whatever reason, have decided he's their man," McCain said.

Democrats have challenged efforts by Nader to be listed on the ballots in more than a dozen states.

Many blame Nader for Democrat Al Gore's loss to Republican George W. Bush in the 2000 election, especially in Florida, where Bush won by just 537 votes. Nader drew more than 97,000 votes in the state. 

From Newsmax.com

The key here is that the democrats are challenging him in more than 12 states! What country do they think they are living in? North Korea?

Pat Buchanon (or was it Perot) lost George Bush Sr. a few states in his election with Clinton. Third parties have always been there, just get used to it.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> On top of that, we need to get rid of Kerry and Edwards, more specifically the BS trial lawyers.


I hear ya.

Hold one a sec, let me grab a pitchfork and some smokes and I'll meet you out back.


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

What we have is a government that underpays, Medicare, and an industry that needs to make that shortfall up. So, if you pay for your healthcare, its expensive. If you're the governemnt, nothing is too expensive.

The FDA adds to the cost of drugs by the millions. Tort lawyers have finally driven the cost of malpractice to the point people are leaving the medical field. Check out the laws in MS. You can take a case to ANY county, so venue shopping is reality and JACKPOT JUSTICE is the norm. Hence, many medical pros are leaving or won't consider practicing there.

Reagan had it right when he said: Government IS the problem.

OSHA and Workers Comp/liability insurance drove business out of California, doesn't it seem logical that it might also be driving business out of the country? The new OT rules are an attempt to keep us competitive for a while longer, but the basic problems need to be addressed. Of course the unions will sell business and their own kids futures down the crapper for cash today and a little political advantage.

If you think OSHA is great, don't forget Clinton's OSHA director who thought it would be a great idea for them to inspect residences. That's the scariest kind of Big Brother. Congress backed him off, people aren't ready for that kind of intrusion, yet.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Senator Kerry has proposed a plan for the War in Iraq. The following comes via FoxNews:

Kerry offered his own four-point plan starting with pressing other nations for help.

- Get more help from other nations.

- Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.

- Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.

- Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

"If the president would move in this direction ... we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years," Kerry said. "This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

*STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER*
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
_Drudge Report_

"Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

""But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

"Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully."


----------



## Fat Tony (May 13, 2004)

so to sum it up, they still don't know for sure if these are legit documents or not. since they don't, they shouldn't have used them. 'nuff said.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

coming back to bite them in the ass:

O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious…

MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test…

O'REILLY: All right, now you’re dancing around a question…

MOORE: No, I’m not. There’s no dancing.

O'REILLY: He didn’t lie.

MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true.

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

From the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

*Kerry's 'Plan'*
_BY JAMES TARANTO _ 
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 4:10 p.m. EDT

Yesterday, while everyone else was preoccupied with the CBS scandal, John Kerry gave a speech at New York University in which he said America would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power and then offered his "plan" for dealing with Iraq. As the Associated Press describes it:

Kerry called on [President] Bush to do a much better job rallying allies, training Iraqi security forces, hastening reconstruction plans and ensuring that elections are conducted on time. But his speech was thin on details, with Kerry saying Bush's miscalculations had made solutions harder to come by.

Fox News notes that "Bush dismissed Kerry's four-point plan as a proposal for 'exactly what we're currently doing.' " Kerry's biggest argument seems to be that his overpowering charm would win over "allies" and thus allow him to shirk America's responsibility. Who is he kidding? Reader Stan Watson asks the right question:

I've been waiting for someone to explore what Kerry's pitch to foreign leaders will sound like. "Hey, Jacques, we're engaged in a war at the moment. It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would you be willing to send some French soldiers to help us fight it?" That sure sounds like a winning sales pitch, doesn't?

In his speech, Kerry also complained that "by one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded." That's quite an argument coming from someone who's taken 57 different positions on the war.

Kerry pleaded Saddam's case that "Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda":

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops.

Yet here's what Colin Powell said to the U.N. on Feb. 5, 2003:

What I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.

Kerry also praised himself for smearing American servicemen as war criminals back in 1971: "After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power." On Monday our John Fund drew a comparison between Kerry and Michael Dukakis. But in substance his campaign is increasingly resembling that of George McGovern.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

A portion of Senator Kerry's interview on NPR. (How many times does the reporter ask the same question before he gets an answer?)

*Siegel*: What do you do if you ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff what they need to achieve their mission in Iraq and they say, "We need a lot more troops"? Do you escalate the troop levels, or do you plan for a quick or a constant exit instead?

*Kerry*: You have to support our troops, and you have to do what's necessary to try to make this mission successful, but they have not asked for that. I have to wait until I'm president and sit down with them and see where we are.

*Siegel*: But you yourself have pointed out that Gen. Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, said there should be hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq, and you say he was fired for saying that. What if you get now the "real story," as you would say, the Army speaking candidly--

*Kerry*: I'll have to make a decision when I get there as to what the probabilities are. I can't hypothesize as to what I am going to find on Jan. 20--whether I'm going to find a Lebanon or whether I'm going to find a country that's moving towards an election. That depends on what the president does now.

*Siegel*: But--

*Kerry*: I think the leadership has been arrogant and disastrous.

*Siegel*: But should either you or whoever is president next year consider the possibility of an increase in troops? Is that even a consideration, or should it be completely off the table?

*Kerry*: I do not intend to increase troops. I intend to get the process in place that I described, and I believe as a new president, with new credibility, with a fresh start, that I have the ability to be able to change the dynamics on the ground.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

What an idiot, he wants to be president of the US but refuses to give his policy for anything.

Guess what "I'll do it better than Bush" is not a policy, it is a cop out.


----------



## friendoofop (Jul 20, 2004)

I sat for half an hour looking at what I was about to post on this thread.

Finally I decided I wasn't going say anything nice about either candidate, and that I should just keep my mouth shut (or at least fill it with a cigar) and try not to offend anyone.

Somebody let me know when the election is over....


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

friendoofop said:


> Somebody let me know when the election is over....


If you looked at the trend in most of polls, it is starting to look like it is over...


----------



## assafire (Aug 23, 2004)

summerkc said:


> What an idiot, he wants to be president of the US but refuses to give his policy for anything.
> 
> Guess what "I'll do it better than Bush" is not a policy, it is a cop out.


He must have heard you as he is about to detail what he would do. WWJKD?

Wait till the debates, the stark contrast between Bush's optimism and Kerry's pessimism will settle it for a lot of the undecided.

Also, the Chechen raid on the Russian school shocked a lot of mothers into realizing the stakes we are playing for. They see it can happen here, especially with our extremely leaky borders.

Bush has never changed his position and Kerry is nothing but a weathervane about to swing into a new direction once again.

I will set a wake up call for friendoofop after the election. Good luck avoiding it all. :w


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Ralph Nader on the Democratic Party....

"The Democratic Party, under the influence of its corporate supremacists, is a gutless, spineless, clueless and hapless party and needs to be challenged by liberal Democrats," he told reporters in Washington last week. "We must never tolerate a Democratic Party that turns its back on the very people it depends on to win elections."


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Looks like the debating is over. From CBS news:


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Found this on Drudge... Looks like I am going to lose my mind!  

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards cut to the chase last night on ABCNEWS NIGHTLINE:

ABC'S BOB WOODRUFF: "He has avoided the kind of negative attacks that can make national news, although recently, he has stepped up his rhetoric." 

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) (clip of a speech): "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Edwards also said today that if Kerry is elected people that are quadrapalegic will get out of their wheel chair and walk.

The left is so intent on getting the religous vote they are now acting like John Kerry is Jesus!


----------



## Puros (Oct 7, 2004)

*Puros steps up on the soapbox*

OK, here goes a rant from a newbie. I will get a little off topic  Apologies in advance. 

It is good to see the opposing views post here. I worry about the slanted point of view presented by the media all over the world. Those points of view shape our perception and therefore our reality, based on the news cycle on what has the most impact, not the truth. The blatant bias of the media one way or another is frightening. What happen to the Edward R. Murrow idea of news to give us the information and let us decide what we believe? Media now believes that it has to tell us what to think and we clamor to it like sheep. I find myself reading post and listening to discussions from all reaches of life that are based on what the media has shuffled out. It is unfortunate. I have traveled far and wide and have found that there isn't an "ideal" way or "sensible' reasoning. The only common theme is that closed minds and bias views are the biggest murders in the world. It is that kind of blind faith in the media and desire to blame our lot in life on another that led to Hitler's terrible reign and to the fanatical perversion of the great religion of Islam. 

That being said... 

I am have been part of the group that ppl love to hate all my life. 

I am hated for being a man for the suppression of women. 
I am hated for being a southerner (*******) 
I am hated for being one of the beer guzzling, stogie smoking, blue collar workers 
I am hated for being of Irish decent to a select few. 
I am hated for being a Christian that doesn't hide his belief to be PC 
I am hated for being a certain race (even though I judge on the character of a person and teach my sons the same) 
I am hated for being on the opposite side of a political view to the point of accusations and finger pointing. (However, it is the debate of political views as statesmen that has made our country great) 
I am hated for recognizing the need of security of my nation comes first (for it is the basis for all success of society. For without it, we become scared, we repress the natural instinct to venture forth) 
I am hated because I am an American. 

But that is ok; 

It is because I am an American, for it is with our wide shoulders that we shoulder responsibility and accountability of our mistakes and the mistakes of others. 
It is with those shoulders that we stand side by side with our friends. 
It is with those shoulders that I forgive the verbal bumbles of our President. 
It is with those shoulders that I judge the actions of our President as a man that is has one of toughest jobs of any other past President. 
It is with those shoulders that I understand that it is more important to make decisions based on solid values and honorable beliefs of what is right and not the swaying politically Correctness of the poles. (It was said by a great lady that consensus is the absence of leadership). 
It is with those shoulders we send our sons and daughters to fight for others rights and our security. 
It is with those shoulders that I refuse to hold my young son and say “let there be peace in my time". 

It is because it is time that we stop this divisiveness, time to stop pointing fingers, and time to roll up our sleeves and get to work, it is time that Americans remember that it is not only our unique self’s that define us but our common national self’s also. 

It is time to stand and be counted 

It is time to say... 

I AM AN AMERICAN


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Wetterhorn said:


> Senator Kerry has proposed a plan for the War in Iraq. The following comes via FoxNews:
> 
> Kerry offered his own four-point plan starting with pressing other nations for help.
> 
> ...


uh... mr. kerry, although you're not clued in on what the current plan is, let me just say this:

4 more years??? the CURRENT PLAN is to be out of there by christmas of 2006!! 
now, based on my math skills, 4 MORE YEARS = 2009 (if he takes over in 2005).

how is 2009 sooner than 2006?
what a dumbass. wish he'd get his facts straight before he opens his mouth.


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

flipflop said:


> What a coincidence. I used to think the same thing. The fact that some people here are Kerry supporters proves that many people pay no attention to the issues or simply deny facts that do not mesh with what they want to believe.
> 
> But you're right... we all have good taste in cigars.


Kerry supporters deny facts?!!! "Dubya" sets the standard when it comes to denying reality.

How anyone can justify the Iraq mistake and re-elect that idiot is beyond me. What are you guys _really_ smoking?

:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Tunadelight said:


> Kerry supporters deny facts?!!! "Dubya" sets the standard when it comes to denying reality.
> 
> How anyone can justify the Iraq mistake and re-elect that idiot is beyond me. What are you guys _really_ smoking?
> 
> :u


Maybe if you just read through all 20 something pages of this thread and didn't just make your first post at CS pissing 66% of us off, you wouldn't have said something that insulting. We have had a polite conversation about the issues, and havn't had to resort to name calling and put downs like most of the democrats this election year.


----------



## Puros (Oct 7, 2004)

> How anyone can justify the Iraq mistake and re-elect that idiot is beyond me. What are you guys really smoking?


Ok, I have heard this stuff long enough. Tell us, Tunadelight, what is exactly that Iraq has done to us and how you would fight the war on terrorism? What is its the relation to Afganistan? You made the statement. You say we deny the facts, tell us what you think the tactical advantage in the war on terrorism that not going into Iraq would give us? Tell us why there was so much looting in Iraq?

No emotion or party line stuff. No media replay. Just your opinion back by what you preceive as facts. This is you chance to speak up and be heard.

I, for one, am listening. If not, (I know I'm new here but) sit down and shut up. The grown ups have real work to do.


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

summerkc said:


> Maybe if you just read through all 20 something pages of this thread and didn't just make your first post at CS pissing 66% of us off, you wouldn't have said something that insulting. We have had a polite conversation about the issues, and havn't had to resort to name calling and put downs like most of the democrats this election year.


_Pleeease._ Have _you_ read the 26 pages on this thread? They're chock full of insults predominantly directed at John Kerry and those who support him!

My comments weren't meant as an insult to the members on this forum. Although we all share an appreciation of fine cigars, it's apparent that if you choose to question what GW would have you believe as he wraps himself in the flag rather than provide intelligent leadership, you're in the minority here.

:u


----------



## Puros (Oct 7, 2004)

> it's apparent that if you choose to question what GW would have you believe as he wraps himself in the flag rather than provide intelligent leadership, you're in the minority here.


Again, you tear down the President without any bases behind your statement. Please, enlighten us on how you came to your conclusion. It seems that you want to be heard. Let's hear it.

Last chance...


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

Puros said:


> Ok, I have heard this stuff long enough. Tell us, Tunadelight, what is exactly that Iraq has done to us and how you would fight the war on terrorism? What is its the relation to Afganistan? You made the statement. You say we deny the facts, tell us what you think the tactical advantage in the war on terrorism that not going into Iraq would give us? Tell us why there was so much looting in Iraq?
> 
> No emotion or party line stuff. No media replay. Just your opinion back by what you preceive as facts. This is you chance to speak up and be heard.
> 
> I, for one, am listening. If not, (I know I'm new here but) sit down and shut up. The grown ups have real work to do.


Exactly Puros! What was the actual reason we went to war in Iraq? It certainly wasn't for the reasons the Bush administration claimed at the time (and now so conveniently spin). And what was the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq? It wasn't 9/11 which is why we're fighting a war on terror isn't it?

Tactical advantage of not going to war in Iraq? How about not wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a poorly planned quagmire that now diverts much needed resources (and will continue to do so for years to come) that could be better spent fighting Al Qaeda more directly at their true sources! How about not squandering the goodwill of the rest of the world that was ours after 9/11 and screwing future backing for a pre-emptive strike when and if it's actually necessary! How about not providing unnecessary grounds for Muslims to hate us more and terrorists to recruit zealots more easily!

Why the looting? Because a people that were severely deprived for years by a dictator (yes - Saddam was an evil SOB) weren't prevented from running wild due to a lack of sufficient troops on the ground. Just ask Paul Bremer.

I'm glad you're supposedly listening. George Bush sure isn't. No matter what facts have come to light regarding the invasion of Iraq, he just continues to dismiss or ignore them and instead seeks to divert attention away from his administration's failures. Patriotic flag waving has its place, but it's no substitute for intelligent leadership!

Now I'll sit down and shut up. Like you "grown ups", I too have "real work" to do and have to be up at 04:30. Good night.

:u


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

Tunadelight said:


> _Pleeease._ Have _you_ read the 26 pages on this thread? They're chock full of insults predominantly directed at John Kerry and those who support him!
> 
> My comments weren't meant as an insult to the members on this forum. Although we all share an appreciation of fine cigars, it's apparent that if you choose to question what GW would have you believe as he wraps himself in the flag rather than provide intelligent leadership, you're in the minority here.
> 
> :u


I have read all 26 pages of this thread, and your comments were I think the #2 & #3 most insulting posts.

And you still havn't posted anywhere except this thread, sounds to me like you just want to start trouble and not contribute to the site.


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

summerkc said:


> I have read all 26 pages of this thread, and your comments were I think the #2 & #3 most insulting posts.
> 
> And you still havn't posted anywhere except this thread, sounds to me like you just want to start trouble and not contribute to the site.


Forgive me summerkc, but I'm not totally surprised at you finding my comments insulting given that your perspective is obviously biased. Had I badmouthed John Kerry, liberals, and/or democrats, I'm confident that you would have responded with the verbal equivalent of a high five.

Although I strongly disagree with many of the posts on this thread, I respect that you and others have invested a lot of time here in expressing your views. I also understand that given my rookie status as a posting member, you might easily misinterpret my intentions as those of a trouble maker. I assure you that this is not the case. The fact of the matter is that you have to start somewhere and although I have viewed this site numerous times for its cigar discussions, I haven't felt compelled to express an opinion until I read this thread. I'll blame it on election fervor and the fact that it amazes me that half the country would supposedly choose to re-elect Bush.

Go Kerry!

:u


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

Tunadelight said:


> How anyone can justify the Iraq mistake and re-elect that idiot is beyond me.


what iraq mistake? please explain where the mistake was at? don't use the BS that the liberal media is using, because we could shoot holes through that in a matter of seconds.

if you haven't noticed, I WORK FOR THE MILITARY, i get to sit in on a LOT of cool classified briefings as well. i can tell you that what mr. kerry says is not true. what's worse is that all the evidence is there in all the "reports" for everyone to read (9-11 report and WMD report). both reports support our actions in iraq if YOU were to read it and not let CBS or CNN tell you what it said.

the 2nd can't get here fast enough. i just don't know how sick i'll be if j. kerry actually wins. of course, if gore would've won, i'd probably be homeless right now (or dead due to more hijackings cuz he's a spineless punk).
u


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Tunadelight said:


> I'll blame it on election fervor and the fact that it amazes me that half the country would supposedly choose to re-elect Bush.
> 
> :u


Boy, listen. I am fiercely conservative, not because of any deep rooted anger at those who cannot survive for themselves, but because as my education progressed, the teachings of Hobbes and Locke et al were proven to be the only teachings that could stand up to the test of time and, more importantly, the test of human nature. Your "suppose" comment builds an alter to your mentality. Accept the fact that people have opinions different from yours. and instead of degrading them by calling them stupid or misaligning facts and statistics, learn from them. I could argue and, to a logical and independent person, win most any argument on any topic against you, I will refrain because you are not yet ready to learn. Do I have all the answers? Not even close! But you avoid issues because you instead choose to question a series of polls given before an election that was known to most anyone with an IQ that would make the Richter Scale do the Hokey Pokey to be very close. You actually question the closeness of this of this election?? Come on...Ill give you the moment...please go ahead and retract your statement. Take all the time you need.

You have heard many reasons for the war:

Stability in the middle east

A middle eastern country fighting terrorism

An Arab ally

oil that is not dependent on which tribe is in power

munitions that could easily reach Israel and start WWIII

WWII-esque slaughter

the mere possibility of WMD

You know what, the real reasons dont matter to a lot of people...to pacify many, here are the reasons we invaded Iraq

Saddam killed JFK
Saddam caused FDR's polio
Saddam shot JR Ewing'

Happy?

politics aside, welcome to CS :w


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

IHT said:


> what iraq mistake? please explain where the mistake was at? don't use the BS that the liberal media is using, because we could shoot holes through that in a matter of seconds.
> 
> if you haven't noticed, I WORK FOR THE MILITARY, i get to sit in on a LOT of cool classified briefings as well. i can tell you that what mr. kerry says is not true. what's worse is that all the evidence is there in all the "reports" for everyone to read (9-11 report and WMD report). both reports support our actions in iraq if YOU were to read it and not let CBS or CNN tell you what it said.
> 
> ...


Ah &#8230; the cursed "liberal media". Perhaps if GW gets another four years, Ashcroft can find a way to shut them down via a refinement to the Patriot Act. Until then, I guess George will continue to hold his record for appearing at the least number of press conferences since William Howard Taft (with the exception of Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate and Ronald Reagan after Iran-contra).

I'm sure I listen to what would be categorized as the liberal media, but I try to get my information from a range of sources - including FOX News, both sides of the editorial pages, conservative radio talk shows, and forums such as this one. I am not in the military and privy to classified briefings, but I value the perspective of a couple of friends of mine who are. One is a navy captain in intelligence at the Pentagon who has told me flat out that the Bush administration 1) put intense pressure on the intelligence agencies before the Iraq invasion to come up with something on WMD's or heads would roll and 2) has f'd this war up big time. The other is an army captain currently serving in Iraq who has told me that he doesn't question why we're there, but he has serious concerns about the way the war is being run.

As for why I call the Iraq war a mistake, here are a number of my reasons briefly:

•	I doubt that we would be in Iraq today under another president - democratic or republican. In GW Bush, certain conservatives found a candidate willing to carry out the Iraq doctrine drafted by Paul Wolfowitz back when he was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in GH Bush's administration. GW entered office with the intent of finishing his daddy's uncompleted business one way or another and with 9/11 he found an opportunity to push his agenda.
•	Although the UN can move at the pace of a slug, we cannot expect other civilized governments to abide by international agreements and then in turn pick and choose when we wish to. By attacking Iraq, we effectively said to the world that we don't care what we've stood for (and agreed to) in terms of international law, we're going to do what we want in this case because we think it's right and we because we can. The world is getting smaller and diplomacy and working with our allies is essential to a long term resolution of international troubles. 
•	Taking a pre-emptive strike attitude of kick ass and screw anyone who disagrees can only be justified if it is absolutely necessary and you know what you're getting into. In the case of Iraq, that has clearly not proven to be the case. The Bush administration has performed the equivalent of going "all in" before the flop in a game of Texas Hold'em and ending up holding a weak hand.
•	If you're going to go to the extreme of a war, you better damn well plan not only how to win the battle, but how to secure the victory and achieve long term goals. GW declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003, because to him it had been - Saddam Hussein was out of power. Underestimating the opposition, not utilizing enough troops, and totally dismantling the Iraqi military have been key mistakes committed in the execution of this war. As a result, the borders weren't secured, the populace was allowed to loot, munitions were left unguarded, and insurgents have been able to seize whole cities. These facts weren't just pointed out by the liberal media. Numerous high ranking republicans have stated as well that the current administration did not plan this war adequately.
•	It will cost us untold hundreds of billions of dollars that could be spent more effectively through increasing our intelligence network (for one) rather than slugging it out with an endless stream of religious zealots in the streets of Najaf. By attacking Iraq, we've given Islamic extremists the ability to easily recruit many more "martyrs" than they would have otherwise. Unfortunately, we're committed now and it has become a quagmire as well as a diversion from what we should really have concentrated on - finishing off Osama Bin Laden, fighting Al Qaeda at their true sources, and truly securing our country against a nuclear or biological terror attack.

There it is - shoot away. I'm sure this will probably bring on a whole barrage.

I too will be glad when this election is over as I think that our election process in general is waaaay too long and needs be refined. Our current system requires elected officials to be too reliant upon and beholding to special interests. And I don't like that any president (even Dubya) has to essentially spend the last two years of his initial term concentrating on re-election.

:u


----------



## Tunadelight (Oct 28, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> Boy, listen. I am fiercely conservative, not because of any deep rooted anger at those who cannot survive for themselves, but because as my education progressed, the teachings of Hobbes and Locke et al were proven to be the only teachings that could stand up to the test of time and, more importantly, the test of human nature. Your "suppose" comment builds an alter to your mentality. Accept the fact that people have opinions different from yours. and instead of degrading them by calling them stupid or misaligning facts and statistics, learn from them. I could argue and, to a logical and independent person, win most any argument on any topic against you, I will refrain because you are not yet ready to learn. Do I have all the answers? Not even close! But you avoid issues because you instead choose to question a series of polls given before an election that was known to most anyone with an IQ that would make the Richter Scale do the Hokey Pokey to be very close. You actually question the closeness of this of this election?? Come on...Ill give you the moment...please go ahead and retract your statement. Take all the time you need.
> 
> You have heard many reasons for the war:
> 
> ...


Wow. Easy there Adam.

You say you don't have all the answers, but sounds like you're pretty sure of yourself - and me for that matter.

But you're only 21 right? I think you might want to get a few more years under your belt before you settle on what "stands up to the test of time". Experience adult life and responsibilities beyond school; have a family and watch them grow; gain a broader perspective on the world; and then see how anxious you are to send your son or daughter off to a war that's the result of some politician's personal agenda.

I'm not sure what you base your judgment that I'm "not ready to learn" on. I have accepted that some people have opinions that differ from mine, but I'm still interested (and yes - sometimes surprised) as to why. If I didn't wish to hear from those with opposing opinions, I wouldn't be spending the time to have this discourse. Arguing the minority viewpoint in a predominantly pro-Bush forum isn't necessarily my idea of a pleasurable time. I do believe there is something to be gained from it though. Hopefully, on the part of both sides.

Thanks for giving me the time to retract my statement regarding the closeness of the presidential election, but you haven't provided any basis for doing so. You "could argue &#8230; and win most any argument on any topic" against me? If you say so. However, I'd recommend that you employ analogies that won't leave "a logical and independent person" scratching their head.

The reasons you listed for the war are noble in themselves and certainly worthy of pursuing. But this isn't a black and white world and our having rushed to invade Iraq isn't necessarily going to achieve or prevent (depending on which one you're talking about) these. In fact, it could very well cause the opposite to occur. We shall see now. Since we've opted for invasion though, why stop at just Iraq? Why not take out Syria and Iran too if we think war is the best way to create Middle East stability and secure Israel? And based on the mere possibility of WMD's there's a long list of nations that we could attack. I won't repeat my reasons here for why I think this war is a mistake - please see my previous posts. I believe you'll see that I didn't call anyone "stupid", misalign any facts and statistics, or avoid any issues either.

And thanks for the welcome to CS too Adam - really.

:u


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

IHT said:


> what iraq mistake?


Which of the many?

WMD? WRONG - MISTAKE.

Alleged connections with Al Queda? WRONG - MISTAKE

Yellow cake? WRONG - FALSIFIED REPORTS - MISTAKE

Titanium/Aluminum tubes? WRONG - MISTAKE

No plan for security post invasion, none. BIG STUPID MISTAKE

Insufficient troop strength. BIG MISTAKE

Wildly underestimating the cost of the war, under 40 billion according to Rummy, the estimates at several hundred billion was laughed at. What will the total be at latest count with the most recent request? MISTAKE YOUR KIDS WILL PAY FOR

When Rummy was there in the '80s and kissing Saddam's ass, we already knew he had used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Didn't seem to bother Rummy much then when there was a potentially lucrative oil deal in the offing. FLIP FLOP

Attacking Saddam because he didn't have nuclear weapons and leaving North Korea alone because they do will only make the push harder to acruire them as nukes are US invasion deterrent. I'm surprised North Korea hasn't sold a couple to Iran yet. BIG BIG MISTAKE

Warlords are back in power in Afghanistan. Drug production is way up. BIG MISTAKE

Osama, who "can run but he can't hide", has hidden quite successfully. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, other than obliquely by giving money to Palestinian suicude bombers' families. OTOH, if your brother becomes a suicide bomber without your knowledge or support, the IDF will bulldoze YOUR house, so maybe the money can be used to replace stuff the IDF illegally destroys.

I don't want to get in a flame war here, but looking at Iraq as anything but a collosal mistake is naive.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Tunadelight said:


> Wow. Easy there Adam.
> 
> You say you don't have all the answers, but sounds like you're pretty sure of yourself - and me for that matter.
> 
> ...


.

The reason for the big bite was mainly the "supposed" comment.

"But you're only 21 right? I think you might want to get a few more years under your belt before you settle on what "stands up to the test of time". Experience adult life and responsibilities beyond school; have a family and watch them grow; gain a broader perspective on the world; and then see how anxious you are to send your son or daughter off to a war that's the result of some politician's personal agenda. "

Im a fast learner. My view would not change with regards to a family, just as my father's hasn't, nor his parents, nor his grandparents. Sometimes, there are big scary things we have to do in life. Another part of "growing up" is facing your responsibilities and fears. Would I be nervous? Of course! But I would also understand my son/daughter's decision and committment and would swell with pride.

"Thanks for giving me the time to retract my statement regarding the closeness of the presidential election, but you haven't provided any basis for doing so"

You are very welcome. My basis for giving you time to retract your statement?? Because Im generous...all conservatives are. Thats why we believe in voluntary charity rather than the FDR vitola (wanted to keep things somewhat cigar related). If youre asking why I questioned your suggestion that the polls and the elections next week are fixed...I think its rather obvious. Granted, it could be the vast right wing conspiracy making up numbers, or even the ghost of Reagan, but since you suggested the whole thing, perhaps you could better explain it.

"Since we've opted for invasion though, why stop at just Iraq? Why not take out Syria and Iran too if we think war is the best way to create Middle East stability and secure Israel? "

A very good idea, you should follow your sarcasm Tuesday when you're in the booth. Years of peace talks have done nothing....and this method has worked well in the past. But wouldnt it be easier to take it one step at a time? Or better yet, to start a domino effect where we secure one nation, create an ally, and allow them to help us in the fight againt a terrorist and tribalist middle east?

"And based on the mere possibility of WMD's there's a long list of nations that we could attack"

Also very true, which is why WMD dont matter. They were a parking ticket on a criminals list of felonies.


----------



## MitchellF (Oct 15, 2004)

Considering that John Kerry made the same assumptions as everyone else in Washington and the world concerning WMD's and the threat the Saddam posed, actually making the exact same case as the Bush administration as early as 2002, It would be extremely naive to think he would do anything better. Kerry is on record stating that the Bush administration was doing the right thing and even on record as saying that regime change was needed in Iraq. That is, until he was getting his a$$ kicked by Howard Dean and then all of sudden he changes his mind, again and again and again and again. Kerry actually said during the primaries if you dont think the world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured you do not have the judgement to be the president of the US.(paraphrased but accurate) 
To think Kerry is the answer to the worlds problems is naive and just asking for trouble. His brilliant ideas to shut down the multi-lateral talks in N. Korea and resume bilateral talks is exactly what Clinton did and the reason N. Korea has the weapons they currently have. It is amazing that he will leave the protection of the US to some sort of global test and his main goal will be to garner a coalition for military actions in the future, but when it comes to N. Korea, throw out the coalition that is negotiating and go it alone...??? His most brilliant idea though is to give nuclear fuel to Iran which happens to be months away from a bomb if they "promise" to use it for peaceful purposes. Naive? Once again, exactly the same scenario that the Clinton adminstration used with N. Korea and look where they are now. Madam Albright said "they tricked us." Now that is some real responsible governing! The idea that Iraq did not have any ties to Al-Qaida or other terrorists organizations is naive. It is amazing that Al-Qaida has cells in nearly every nation in the world including the US and especially in south Florida but not in Iraq? This notion has been debunked and everyone especially the media seems to forget about Salmon-Pak, the training ground with airline bodies in place for hijacking training...or where they there, in the desert for stewardess training? As far as kissing Saddams a$$, politics and alliances change all the time. Does anyone remember that we were once allies of the Soviet Union? Not enough soldiers on the ground? We over took Baghdad faster than the Clinton administration took out the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas! Cost of the war, has it even came close to the monetary loses we experienced after 9/11 and are still experiencing today? I would be willing to guess the real estate and buildings destroyed on 9/11 where more costly than the cost of the war so far, not to mention the infinite cost of the American lives lost that day. Is it responsible to vote for the war, then say that no one in the Congress would vote against giving our troops the weapons and supplies they need to win the war and then vote against it as a "protest vote"? Is that what we need in a leader, putting the lives of our soldiers in even more jeopardy for a protest vote? As far as this global test that Kerry is stuck on, he says we need allies, a coalition before taking any action. Well in 1990, we had a large coalition and a United Nations resolution approving the use of force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. Kerry still voted against it. A coalition in Kerry's mind is the approval of France and Germany. The reason we did not get a "Kerry coalition" is because we now know that France, Germany and other members of the security council were on the take from Saddam in the Oil for Food Program. What the hell does it take for this man to use military action? IF invading another country and threatening to invade even another is not enough the world is in trouble. I think the only time this man would use the force of the US military would be if France or Germany were invaded and especially if someone threatened Vietnam!

This man has been and may still be a puppet for the few remaining communist countries in this world. He took orders from the N. Vietnamese in the early '70's and actually ran for office at their recommendation........Kerry,Hanoi ......Hanoi directed Kerry ........US surrender Kerry

Anyone who would trust this man to lead our country is indeed naive. It is a scary thought that a flag burning, America hating traitor could be elected president. It is unbelievable that he is even in the senate. He should actually be serving a life sentence in a federal prison instead of feeding us his daily pack of lies.

Kerry has also recently stepped in it and subconciously admitted another lie this week. He was told by Tom Brokaw that a well known think-tank reported that Bush's military IQ was much higher than Kerry's. Kerry repsonded that he did not know how they came to that conclusion since his military records are not public....Now he has asssured us that all of his records are posted on his website but anyone with half a brain knows that is a lie! He just finally admitted it national television for the first time. The reason they are not public is because Kerry got less than an honorable discharge from the Navy Reserve. It took a democrat president, Jimmy Carter to basically give him and other dishonorably discharged vets and draft dodgers a pardon. However, a pardon does not erase the military records of that individual including Kerry. If this is not the case why is he, by his own words, not making his records public?

In ending, I made a post on this board a couple of days ago that the democrats would be blaming Karl Rove for the recent Osama Bin Laden video tape, and true to form Walter Cronkite has just stated publicly that he believes Karl Rove is behind release and timing of the video! These people are unbelievable! They blame Bush for the hurricanes in Florida (the real sad part is that they actually believe it), they accuse him of disenfranchising one million black voters when they cannot even produce one minority that says they were kept from voting, they accuse him of stealing the election and taking it to the courts when the democrats are the ones who took everything to the courts. They accuse him of being selected instead of elected when the Supreme Court instructed the Florida Supreme Court to quit changing election law as they went along. (If the current laws did not favor Gore, they were changed in mid-stream) The democrats accuse Bush for the economy, for global warming, for mercury in our water supplies, for the unemployment rate(when it is actually lower than when Clinton was in office), they believe it is his fault that Chernobyl had a meltdown and that Three Mile Island was contaminated(even though these happened decades before he was in office) It does not matter what it is, they blame Bush and use him as their whipping boy. He supposedly has done all of this in less than four years! The funny thing about it is that these ridiculous accusations designed to get the democrats votes are actually the things that will cost you the election. When the democrats realize that the majority of the people in this country are not as stupid as the democrats think we are, they might win an election one day. Until then, be prepared to be denied access to the Whitehouse. Voting for Kerry is basically voting for the end of the US as a sovereign nation. OUr government and military will be handed over to the corruption of the UN.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> .
> Years of peace talks have done nothing....and this method has worked well in the past. But wouldnt it be easier to take it one step at a time? Or better yet, to start a domino effect where we secure one nation, create an ally, and allow them to help us in the fight againt a terrorist and tribalist middle east?


Mark my words, Iraq will NEVER be an ally, they will never be a stable democracy, and they will never help bring stability to the middle east. Iraq will fragment the second US troops leave. There should be no question of this. The only way Kurds Shia and Sunnis can remain together is with an iron fist. That iron fist is not what democracy is about. Having studied middle eastern politics for 35 years, I can assure you this is true.

There is a reason for years of peace talks going nowhere. A huge part of the problem is Arafat's dictatorial autocratic rule and support for terrorist murderers. Another huge part is the massive buildup of settlements in the occupied terretories since Oslo was signed, at least tripling numbers last time I bothered to check 1+ year ago (much higher now I'm sure) and the irresponsible heavy handed way in which IDF forces deal with unrest.

I've ALWAYS said that the Palestinians would be much better served to buy video cameras and document how they are treated, use nonviolent protest rather than use of terrorist stupidity. Shooting children, bombing innocents, they are absolutely INSANE if they think this promotes their cause. But every innocent palestinian killed creates a new batch of zealots intent of killing innocent Israelis. A viscious circle that must be broken but will not be broken while the US is sitting idly by.

Peace in the middle east goes through Jerusalem. We have the ability to change policies there and promote peace and instead we invade Iraq. That makes no frickin sense.

Sorry I'm bitching, no offense is intended. But I've watched things go from bad to worse while W picks his nose watching israel-palestine, and invades Iraq instead of helping peace, which just makes things much, much worse. It pisses me off bigtime that the US administration burns the stupid roadmap and smiles like some idiot chump saying "oh boy, with this new democratic friend Iraq everything is going to be great" instead of lifting one finger to promote peace in Israel. Israelis and paletinians cannot engage peace without help, thats clear as day. So what does W do? Nothing. Ya, invade Iraq instead, thats the ticket.

The sad thing is that I'm going to vote for W because I hate Kerry with a passion.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

MitchellF said:


> Considering that John Kerry made ....


Tell us what you really think! :r

Didn't you like Kerry's going goose hunting? What a nerd, he looked like a dude hunter so bad it made be bust a gut. Ya, Kerry is sooooo cool, he hunts ducks, I'm going to vote for him.....
Don't you like his amazing track record in the senate: absolutely amazing that somebody can be there so long and have no legacy other than being more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

I am on record as hating both of these bozos. But I'll vote W, even though I hate a lot of what he has done, simply because Kerry and Edwards send shivers up my spine, and I read recently that the VA vote might be close. I wish there was somebody I REALLY wanted for president up there.


----------



## MitchellF (Oct 15, 2004)

I am not going to pretend that W is perfect. I have a lot of beefs with him especially concerning the borders and illegal immigration. I am sure this sticks in your crawl as well since you did it the legal way and just recently became a naturalized citizen. I have nothing against immigrants as long as they do it the right way. This stuff about coming over the border, hitting our welfare roles, not paying taxes and then demanding the right to vote just sends me over the edge. 

As far as Iraq, I had some very mixed feelings about the war before it began. We are there now and must do our best to complete the mission. Anyway, as I stated before I am not attempting to offend anyone but this election and campaign process has gotten way out of control.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

MitchellF said:


> I am not going to pretend that W is perfect. I have a lot of beefs with him especially concerning the borders and illegal immigration. I am sure this sticks in your crawl as well since you did it the legal way and just recently became a naturalized citizen. I have nothing against immigrants as long as they do it the right way. This stuff about coming over the border, hitting our welfare roles, not paying taxes and then demanding the right to vote just sends me over the edge.


You're dead on, I can go off on this for hours too and it simply BLOWS MY MIND! Requiring schools to enroll illegals? Er....if you know they're illegal, and you know where the greyhound station is, why the heck are American taxpayers footing their education and not shipping illegals home? You think its bad here? You should see what happens in Canada ... it will literally make you SICK.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

SeanGAR said:


> Mark my words, Iraq will NEVER be an ally, they will never be a stable democracy, and they will never help bring stability to the middle east. Iraq will fragment the second US troops leave. There should be no question of this. The only way Kurds Shia and Sunnis can remain together is with an iron fist. That iron fist is not what democracy is about. Having studied middle eastern politics for 35 years, I can assure you this is true.
> 
> There is a reason for years of peace talks going nowhere. A huge part of the problem is Arafat's dictatorial autocratic rule and support for terrorist murderers. Another huge part is the massive buildup of settlements in the occupied terretories since Oslo was signed, at least tripling numbers last time I bothered to check 1+ year ago (much higher now I'm sure) and the irresponsible heavy handed way in which IDF forces deal with unrest.
> 
> ...


c'mon....35 years of study and you think we could change a thing in Israel? Don't get me wrong, I think Israel was a huge mistake, but we could never pull support now. Think of the ramifications on the home front.

And Iraq as a free state will work. It will take time, but as you said, with an iron fist it will work. Will the tensions ever be relieved? No. But to deny the fact that cultural/religious/racist hatred can be, for the most part, dissolved is ignoring quite a bit of history. It will always be present, but you can bring that attitude out of power...and that it what is important.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

SeanGAR said:


> You're dead on, I can go off on this for hours too and it simply BLOWS MY MIND! Requiring schools to enroll illegals? Er....if you know they're illegal, and you know where the greyhound station is, why the heck are American taxpayers footing their education and not shipping illegals home? You think its bad here? You should see what happens in Canada ... it will literally make you SICK.


ditto

we always get a ton of illegals trying to get in from canada. It makes for some good reading in the newspaper though. They will hide in truck wheel wells, it pickups where the spare goes, false floors, boxes, anything.


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

AAlmeter said:


> c'mon....35 years of study and you think we could change a thing in Israel? Don't get me wrong, I think Israel was a huge mistake, but we could never pull support now. Think of the ramifications on the home front.
> 
> And Iraq as a free state will work. It will take time, but as you said, with an iron fist it will work. Will the tensions ever be relieved? No. But to deny the fact that cultural/religious/racist hatred can be, for the most part, dissolved is ignoring quite a bit of history. It will always be present, but you can bring that attitude out of power...and that it what is important.


I would never withdraw support for Israel, never. I look at it this way: I love my kids, but sometimes I need to disipline them. It breaks my heart, but sometimes they need a spank to understand that bad behaviour will not be repeated. Allowing Israel to do whatever they want is not constructive as long as they can't make logical decisions for peace themselves.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

It will never happen. We will never even be able to give them a slap on the wrist. There are too many powerful people in our own country that are of the "Israel over all" mindset. Imagine Bush imposing some sort of "punishment". Something mild...say trade sanctions or a 0.25% tarriff on all imported goods from Israel. Imagine when the spin machine gets that. Fringe liberals already walk around at rallys with Bush = Hitler posters. The mainstream libs would attack that move and convince numerous mindless voters that he is the second coming of Hitler. This need not be Bush, hell, they would do the same to Lieberman. 

I think it was an unfortunate mistake that we made some 50-60 years ago that has brought us much trouble today.


----------



## Puros (Oct 7, 2004)

Sorry, Tunelight, I didn't see your post until today. I have a few disgreements with your thinking but atleast you posted it and I respoect that.



> And what was the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq? It wasn't 9/11 which is why we're fighting a war on terror isn't it?


No, the war on terror is the connection of the two. When we were hit on 9/11 we were gleefully going along with blinders on. (Now, don't start this "Bush allowed it" stuff. The facts have shown that the policies of the past 20 yrs led to 9/11. The blame is squarely on the shoulders on the terrorist.) Terrorism has claimed lives all over the world, incuding American lives. In Bush's state of the Union address, he declared war on the machine of terrorism. Not just on Al Qaeda or Iraq or Afganistan. It was the insittution of Terrorism. It is truly a World War, whether we like it or not. It is argued that Bush is premptive but this ignores the War as a whole. Was D-Day premptive, or the Doolittle raid on toyko. No, they were a planned offensives in the greater war.

Afganistan, Al Qaeda, and Iraq are battles in in the War on Terrorism. that is the connestion.

This is something that is mistunderstood by the media, John Kerry, and many of his voters. Some people agree with the idea of The War on Terrorism but disgree on the way Bush is fighting it and have some very good idea as to how it should be fought. Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't show that he understands that. He looks at it as a metaphor like the War on Drugs. This is a fundenmental flaw of his. Sadly, the majority of his base believes that same.

Iraq is a great objective in the war. There are many reasons that we went in.

1) Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. 3 on the top 5 terrorist organizations were based out of Iraq. Saddam was suppling money to terrorist in Palastine and other countries.

2)Saddam was shooting at our jets in the No-Fly zone (an act of war and in direct opposition to the UN mandate in which spelled out the ability to go in and disarm him, by force if needed.)

3)The threat of WMD. Well, the reports of no WMD are interesting. The same organizations that said there isn't WMD are the same organizations that said they were there in the first place. And as fore rushing to war, it took Bush 7 months to finally go the war. That is plenty of time to move WMD anywhere. infact, many security experts (not politcal yesman, but people that make their living on being right) suggest that most of the WMD was moved across the border while we were "rushing" to war. So, it can be argued that the delay may have made the world less safe.

4)*Oil* yep, I said it. *Oil* Now, it is time to grow up and understand the practicaliies of war. War takes money to run and it takes money to rebuild a government. The Iraqi oil supply is very large and is enough to destablize the Saudi Arabia hold on the oil market (remember this, it has a very important connection later). Why did we securr the Oil ministration first instead of the Musium. Simple, where beautiful, an piece of art will not feed a nation, fund an independent government, or provide intelegence that would help our troops.

5) A free Iraq is an example to the rest of the Middle East. AAltmeter did a good job with that and I won't repeat it.

6) remember the destabilize Saudi hold thing. There are many experts that point to Saudi as to a major supporter of terrorism. Granted, most of it is behind the scenes and hidden. It is in the interests of Oil companies in Saudi to keep the Middle East unstable because it keeps their hold on the market strong. The quick answer is to not buy oil from Saudi but then Saudi would put pressure on our allies and we would be force to react. No, unfortunatley, Iraqi oil is a means to destabilize Saudi and its provocation of terrorism.

7) Iraq was the strongist opposition in the Middle East. Once it is was controlled it would provide a base of operations for any forth military options. However, the greater benefit is a direct pressure to other countries. Syria has already felt, they gave up the Iraqi command when Powel qietly suggested that all we to do is turn right from Bagdad.

8) The sense of strength is paramount to the fanatical forces behind terrorism. It is writen about in many publications including Storin' Norman's book who spent most of his life in the Middle east. It is one reason he wanted to go to Bagdad in the first Iraq war because he knew that not going after Saddam would show weakness on our part to the terrorist and other fanatics.

I only have time for the above post.I'll get to the looting issue soon. Saty tuned.


----------



## Wetterhorn (Apr 1, 2004)

Very, very interesting article that I thought you all would enjoy and may add to the understanding of the "War on Terrorism" as we head into the election! (I had to redact this article, but if you are interested in the entire article, you may go to http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/2004/october/default.htm)

*What Would Patton Say About the Present War?*
_Victor Davis Hanson, Author, Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq_

What can we imagine George Patton might say about the present war? Lots. Based on what he himself said and wrote, his record in the field, and what scholars have written about him, I think we have some reasonable ideas. I'll begin with Patton's strategic thinking, then follow with suppositions about tactical and operational doctrine.

In 1945, the U.S. was providing annually the equivalent of several billion in today's dollars to the Soviet Union. Patton understood that in war one is forced as a matter of practicality to make such odious alliances. But postwar peace, whose future parameters would be adjudicated while the war was still on, was an entirely different matter. The idea of a United Nations organization was developing; and although many in the U.S. knew that Stalin had institutionalized mass murder, such concerns were muted because it was thought at worst that he was an aberration in an otherwise peaceful - and currently allied - Soviet system. Patton wanted nothing of that naiveté, and instead loudly reminded all that decisions made in 1945 would alter the future security of the U.S. Montgomery in this case was in agreement with Patton, as was Churchill, who likewise saw that the end of World War II might be the beginning of World War III. All three shared a common desire: to take Berlin and extend democratic government to the Russian border.

In a famous exchange, Eisenhower asked, of Patton's request to move eastward immediately, "What in the world for?" Patton without hesitation replied, "You shouldn't have to ask that. History will answer for you, Ike." Bradley protested and offered up the standard American fear of taking 100,000 casualties. Of course, the Russians did take over 100,000 casualties storming Berlin, a fact later used to argue for Eisenhower's prescience. But again, the Russians suffered such casualties because the Germans were fighting ferociously in order that everybody behind them might surrender to the West. Had the Germans known that the Allies were going to take Berlin, the city might have fallen after brief resistance in the manner that other German strongpoints had fallen in the west. What later became West Germany would have extended to Berlin, the allies would probably have occupied Czechoslovakia where the Third Army finished the war, and we would not have had to make later concessions to Stalin to save Austria and Greece.

Patton always realized that armed forces serve political ends and create an immediate reality on the battlefield that politicians argue over for years - that there are times when audacious commanders can create favorable diplomatic situations impossible to achieve by politicians even after years of negotiations. Well before Roosevelt or Eisenhower, he understood that the new Germany was an ally, and the old Soviets were now the new enemy of freedom.

Applying Patton's thinking to today's situation, we can first recognize the so-called "war on terror" as a misnomer. There has never really been a war against a method other than something like Pompey's crusade against the pirates or the British effort to stifle the slave trade. In fact, we're no more in a war against terror than Patton was fighting against Tiger and Panzer tanks. Patton, who understood the hold of a radically triumphalist Nazism on a previously demoralized German people, would have the intellectual honesty to realize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, mostly from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of mostly male, unemployed young people, whose autocratic governments can't provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A small group of Islamists appeals to the angst of the disaffected through a nostalgic and reactionary turn to a mythical Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of foreign gadgetry and pernicious ideas. In some ways, Hitler had created the same pathology in Germany in the 1930s.

Because of the Internet and globalization, Islamic youth have first-hand knowledge of the U.S. - its splendor, power and luxury - that both attracts and repels them, creating appetites forbidden in traditional and tribal society. Thus the fascist terrorists, to be successful, and cognizant of this paradoxical envy and desire, offer a mythical solution in lieu of real social, political and economic reform that in short order would doom the power of the patriarch, mullah and autocrat: Blame the imperialist Americans and the Zionist Israelis who cause this self-induced misery. Even those who don't join the extremists, like most Germans of the late 1930s, don't mind - albeit on the cheap - seeing their perceived enemies take a fall, as long as the consequences of terrorism are mostly positive in a psychological sense without bringing them material suffering in recompense.

Patton would also agree that the remedy for this disease includes aid and reconstruction - helping the defeated to re-build under democratic auspices that would allow real reform. In fact, he was sacked as pro-consul largely because he was said to be too interested in jump-starting German reconstruction at the price of accommodating Germans once affiliated with the Nazi party. But Patton would insist that it is only by military defeat and subsequent humiliation first that the supporters of terrorism against the West will understand the wages of their support for Islamic fascism. Once people in the Middle East, like the Germans, see that the Islamic fascists are defeated - and that all who support and condone that ideology are synonymous with it and thus must pay for their complicity through some measure of sacrifice and suffering - radical bellicose Islamicism really will end. Patton was quite clear about defeating, humiliating and then helping Germans - the proper order of such a progression in attitude being absolutely critical.

Applying these lessons to the first Gulf War, Patton perhaps would have thought it mindless to mobilize an entire expeditionary army - a rare event for a democracy - and then confine it to the Kuwaiti theatre of operations, given that the problem was never merely the occupation of Kuwait, but the tyrant in Baghdad who had a prior record of frequent aggression. From the moment he took command in Normandy, Berlin was on Patton's mind as the only ultimate goal.

As far as encouraging allies to go along, again, Patton always talked more in terms of a fait accompli: The general's job is to create favorable conditions on the ground that his politicians can deal with from a position of strength, rather than vice versa - an American army that achieves victory will have more allies than it knows what to do with. Go to Berlin if Berlin is the problem. Confront the Soviets if the Soviets are the problem. Don't refuse to take Berlin and then try to negotiate with the Soviets over Berlin. Hesitancy does not earn advantage. Similarly in Iraq today: If our goal is to give President Bush leverage with the Europeans and the tyrannical Middle East, then we should continue to destroy the power of the insurgency in Iraq, proving to friends and enemies alike the consequences and advantages of American power.

*"Always Audacity"*

Patton had two phrases that he used almost ad nauseum. The first, from Danton, was: "Audacity, always audacity, still more audacity." The second was "the unforgiving minute," a phrase from Kipling that referred to certain times in war when the collective will of a people or an army can without warning collapse - critical moments that must be capitalized on. Unlike Eisenhower and Bradley, who thought the August 1944 collapse of the German army was likely and thus the war would end before Christmas, Patton knew that if the Panzers were saved from near death, they could be ready to kill again and under far more favorable circumstances. That is exactly what happened at the Falaise Gap. Later at the Seine River, near the Siegfried Line, and when attacking the Bulge, Patton saw that a sweeping hook, rather than a head-on assault, might bring on a total collapse, but only if risks were taken and old plans ignored in light of new realities. Again, the conservative, doctrinaire approach of cautious attack proved the far more costly tactic.

These lessons also apply in recent times. In the first Gulf War, Saddam put almost 250,000 Iraqi troops in bunkers in the sand, and even after weeks of U.S. bombing they were still operational. In response, General Schwarzkopf marched hundreds of miles around the flank, leaving many of the entrenched Iraqi positions behind and headed toward Basra, his long flanks covered by air support. But although we copied Patton's tactics, we forgot their purpose - stopping at the so-called Highway of Death because of the television images of "thousands" of enemy dead. Pentagon staffers worried at the time that 20,000 enemy soldiers had been killed, thus causing a global uproar. We know now that the real number was in the hundreds - and that when we stopped before Basra, fleeing Iraqis did not, and they killed thousands of mostly defenseless Shiites and Kurds over the next few weeks. And over the next 12 years, Anglo-American pilots flew thousands of missions in the Iraq no-fly zones, all as a precursor to the second Iraq war. In short, we forgot Patton's most important lesson: the purpose of outflanking the enemy is to demoralize and annihilate the enemy, thus removing the reasons to go to war in the first place.

In the 2003 Iraq War, on the other hand, Americans drove 400 miles from the Kuwaiti front up to Kurdistan, often bypassing resistance on the way to Baghdad. Never has an armored column traveled so quickly with so few casualties. It was comparable to Patton's march from Normandy to the Siegfried Line. And the same institutionalized army critics of such Patton-like tactics emerged, decrying vulnerable flanks, oblivious to the protection offered by 1,000 planes in the sky. Indeed, Patton was often evoked as we moved quickly, creating conditions of shock and awe, demoralizing the enemy who crumbled and fled. But again, these are fluid, not permanent, situations. If an enemy is demoralized but not destroyed, he may well come back encouraged and with less respect, interpreting magnanimity as weakness or incompetence. Fallujah and Najaf are proof enough of the tragedy that can follow when a defeated enemy is not completely crushed.

*Mobilizing Public Support*

Finally, Patton had very strong views about the character of the American soldier. On the one hand, he appreciated that Americans grew up driving cars, that they were mechanical and practical, that they were highly individualistic, that they liked to move, that they were restless - thus that they were ideally suited for mechanized warfare. Yet he conceded that Americans also had a limited attention span, easily became impatient, were averse to standing in place, and required constant encouragement about the larger purposes that had brought them so far from home.

If we are in a real war, Americans must move quickly on Fallujah and Najaf rather than "contain" such "no-go" zones. Syria and Iran should be warned that their continued sanctuary and aid to terrorists are synonymous with a state of war with the U.S. Patton would advise us that static occupation, negotiations with undefeated insurgents, and mild rebukes to neighboring terrorist sponsors are not only futile, but against the American character of decisive advance and unconditional surrender once war is upon us.

Like Thucydides, Patton appreciated that the emotions that sophisticated people sometimes think are so unimportant - such as fear, pride and honor - are in fact what drive us humans, and therefore must be addressed in any total war. We chuckle at his attention to dress, protocol, medals, speeches and theatrics; but this obsession was not vanity as much as recognition that soldiers are proud and sensitive beings, and must be rewarded and punished in visible ways, war being the essence of human emotion. By the same token, military operations are more than just ground taken and held. They are powerfully symbolic, conveying to third parties either hope or dejection when they see armies routed from the battlefield.

Today, millions in the Islamic world are watching the West struggle against Islamic fascism. Perhaps deep down inside they prefer, logically and with some idealism, to live under Western-style freedom and democratic auspices. And yet nationalism, pride, religion and ethnic solidarity war with reason, combining to produce far greater resentment against a powerful America, even when it brings the very freedom that the Arabs for decades have said they wished. A modern Patton would not be bothered by such inconsistency. Rather he would make sure that he had not only defeated the terrorists and their supporters, but had done so in such damaging fashion that none in the Middle East might find such a repugnant cause at all romantic, bringing as it did utter ruin as the wage of the wrath of the United States.

Patton, who was both learned and yet not smug about the power of the primordial emotions, understood perfectly the irrational nature of warfare and the effect that utter defeat or glorious victory has upon an otherwise rational people. No wonder he hated war defined as a purely bureaucratic enterprise or a purely material and industrial challenge, inasmuch as neither can change the hearts of men that need to be changed. Instead, they usually increase the body count and rarely lead to lasting peace. We should remember wild-eyed George Patton in our Fallujahs to come.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2004. "Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College (www.hillsdale.edu)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Great article and a great man. 

Its amazing how the television has changed our ability to effectively conduct a war.


----------



## summerkc (Jul 23, 2004)

BUSH DEFEATS TRUMAN!

....I MEAN KERRY!


----------



## MitchellF (Oct 15, 2004)

The media, especially ABC and CBS are doing the predictable. They are dragging out calling the vote in Ohio in a last ditch effort to allow the democrats to get all of their cheating done. Obviously they have not had enough time. NBC and Fox are the only networks with the stones to call the obvious. Bush is ahead in Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and has outright won Ohio. He has won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. What does it take for CBS to concede that their campaign work for Kerry has failed? Imagine how much Bush would have won by if the networks had not been reporting 100% optimistic news for Kerry and even 50% good news for Bush. It would have been a complete blowout. The media has been defeated and they better learn their place in this world of the new media mainly the internet news sites that have more of a tendancy to report the truth. It is a good day despiste all the desperate attempts by the media and their candidate. :u


----------



## friendoofop (Jul 20, 2004)

Congrats to the president.........and a nod to Kerry for conceding to Bush when he knew he was beaten. We don't need another 2000, so lets hope Kerry doesn't change his mind (again?) and fight it.

So who's got the link to the 'one finger victory salute' video?


----------



## The Dutch (Apr 5, 2004)

friendoofop said:


> So who's got the link to the 'one finger victory salute' video?


http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov


----------

